State v. Eddington
| Decision Date | 16 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 20180597-CA |
| Citation | 2023 UT App 19 |
| Parties | State of Utah, Appellee, v. Neal Ogden Eddington, Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
First District Court, Logan Department The Honorable Kevin K. Allen The Honorable Angela Fonnesbeck No. 171101138
Ann M Taliaferro, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John J. Nielsen, Attorneys for Appellee
¶1 Neal Ogden Eddington was convicted by a jury of sexual battery and object rape but acquitted of more serious charges, including rape, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated kidnapping. Prior to trial, the prosecution employed Utah's rape shield rule-rule 412 of the Utah Rules of Evidence-to obtain a pretrial ruling barring Eddington from asking questions about or remarking on his alleged victim's prior sexual behavior or sexual disposition. At trial, the State turned these rulings into a sword, asserting in an opening statement that Eddington took his alleged victim's "virtue" and then eliciting testimony from her that she was not the kind of girl who invites guys into her bedroom or engages in certain sexual activity. When Eddington attempted to cross-examine the alleged victim about her statements, the trial court cut off the attempt, citing its earlier ruling. Eddington now challenges the court's ruling, given the change in circumstances at trial. He additionally claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek admission of and question the alleged victim about known evidence. We agree that the trial court exceeded its discretion in barring Eddington from the cross-examination requested under the facts of this case and further determine that Eddington's counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We therefore vacate his convictions and remand this matter for a new trial.
¶2 Eddington met Emily[1] on an ostensibly religious-oriented dating app, and they decided to meet in person for dinner. Afterward, they went to Emily's apartment, which she shared with several roommates, to watch a movie. Eddington wanted to watch the movie in Emily's bedroom, but she declined that invitation. Instead, they watched it in Emily's living room and consensually kissed on the couch during the movie. After the movie ended, Eddington asked to talk privately with Emily, so the two went together to Emily's bedroom. This is where their stories diverge.
¶3 According to Emily, Eddington "immediately" grabbed her "by the neck" and threw her onto the bed. He squeezed her throat, ripped her jeans in half, "ripped off [her] bra," and fondled and kissed her breasts. He "flipped [her] over onto [her] stomach" and started kissing her lower back and buttocks. Emily asked Eddington to stop because she "didn't want to and that wasn't the person [she] was." He vaginally penetrated her with his fingers and tried to put his penis in her vagina but stopped when she resisted. He then forced her to perform oral sex on him several times. Although Emily told him "no" at least twenty times, he refused to stop, repeatedly telling her that it was her "fault" because she was "so beautiful." Eventually, Emily relented to the activity and pretended she was "okay with it" so that Eddington would not hurt her.
¶4 At one point during the evening, Emily's roommate came to the bedroom door with Emily's dog. The roommate asked if everything was okay, and Emily responded in the affirmative she explained that she did so because Eddington was standing right behind her and she was scared that Eddington would harm her or her roommates. In addition, one of Emily's roommates sent her a text message early in the morning asking if Eddington was still in Emily's bedroom and if everything was okay. According to Emily, Eddington forced her to unlock her phone so he could read the messages and told Emily to respond "that everything was fine and [she] made him sleep on the floor." Emily also left her bedroom at some point during the night to use the bathroom. When Emily came out of the bathroom, Eddington was waiting for her right outside the door and the two went back into Emily's bedroom.
¶5 Eddington does not deny that Emily performed oral sex on him several times during the eight hours they spent together in Emily's bedroom or that he inserted his fingers into her vagina, but he maintains that the entire encounter was consensual. He also admits that he "made advancements toward intercourse" but claims that he stopped when Emily objected.
¶6 The next morning after Eddington left the apartment, Emily told her roommate "that things went well" and that "she might be seeing him again." However, later that day, Emily showed the roommate her torn jeans and told her more about what had happened the night before. Emily reported the alleged assault to the police, who then had Emily place a pretextual phone call to Eddington. Eddington was arrested and interviewed by police. During the recorded phone call and interview, Eddington maintained that all the sexual activity with Emily was consensual. He shared certain details about Emily with the police detective regarding their sexual encounter and their conversations during the encounter. Officers obtained and executed a search warrant on Eddington's car and recovered a shotgun from the trunk. The State eventually charged Eddington with three counts of aggravated sexual assault, see Utah Code § 76-5-405,[2] and one count of aggravated kidnapping, see id. § 76-5-302.
¶7 Prior to trial, the State filed a brief motion in limine to exclude any evidence of Emily's prior sexual activity under rule 412 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.[3] See generally Utah R. Evid. 412 (). Eddington did not oppose this motion, and the trial court granted it.
¶8 At trial, however, several incidents occurred that Eddington's counsel (Counsel) argued opened the door to the admission of certain evidence regarding Emily's sexual history. First, during his opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that Eddington "took [Emily's] virtue." After the opening statements, outside the presence of the jury, Counsel argued that because the prosecutor's remark left the jury with the impression that Eddington took Emily's virginity, which was not accurate, the State had opened the door to allow the admission of evidence regarding Emily's sexual history. The court rejected Eddington's assertion and ruled, "I think [the statement] can be interpreted in more than one way, . . . I don't think it's unduly prejudicial and I don't think it opens the door."
¶9 Later, when the prosecutor asked Emily why she did not want to watch the movie in her bedroom, she responded, A few minutes later, in response to a question from the prosecutor about what she was saying during the attack, Emily stated, Emily also testified, "I kept asking him to stop because I didn't want that, that's not who I am," when explaining why she told Eddington to stop kissing her breasts, back, and buttocks. Counsel again argued that these statements were "commenting on [Emily's] prior sexual behavior and opening the door and creating a false impression in the mind of the jury about what she does or doesn't do." To remedy this asserted misimpression, Counsel wanted to ask Emily two follow-up questions: (1) "Isn't it true that you have invited guys into your bedroom and had sexual activity on prior occasions?" and (2) "Isn't it true that you have had sexual activity on prior occasions?" However, the court did not permit Counsel to ask these questions, determining that Emily's statements during her testimony did not open the door to the admission of any evidence of her sexual past.
¶10 As part of its case, the State submitted to the jury the recordings and transcripts of Eddington's phone call with Emily and his interview with police. The police interview was redacted to comply with the court's pre-trial rule 412 ruling to exclude "portions that made reference to prior sexual activity." Specifically, the version given to and heard by the jury omitted statements Eddington made to the detective that, during the evening in question, he and Emily had talked about their past dating experiences and that Emily had told Eddington that she had prior sexual experience, including experience performing oral sex.
¶11 In the unredacted portion of the interview, Eddington described for the police some of the activities that occurred between him and Emily, which included Emily instructing him on how to rub his penis between her breasts and ejaculate telling him she was climaxing while he was touching her, and consoling him when he expressed religious guilt about their sexual activity by telling him that what they were doing was "not a big deal." The jury listened to the redacted version of the recordings of both the phone call and the interview and had the written transcripts as exhibits, and Counsel highlighted Eddington's expression of religious guilt while cross-examining the detective who conducted the interview. But when questioning Emily and the detective, neither Counsel nor the State asked questions about Emily's statements made to Eddington during the night of the incident or the behavior disclosed by Eddington during his interview. In particular, Counsel did not ask Emily to confirm that she had made...
To continue reading
Request your trial