State v. Miles
| Decision Date | 20 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20150809-CA,20150809-CA |
| Citation | 472 P.3d 978 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Thomas Jeffrey MILES, Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Alexandra S. McCallum, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and John J. Nielsen, Attorneys for Appellee
Opinion
¶1 A jury convicted Thomas Jeffrey1 Miles of forcible sodomy, a first-degree felony. Miles appeals, arguing his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to the jury instruction on the mens rea element of recklessness and by not introducing certain evidence at trial. We temporarily remanded this case to the district court to enter additional findings related to the latter argument but are not persuaded that Miles received ineffective assistance of counsel on either claim. Thus, we affirm.
¶2 Miles posted an advertisement on a website known as Craigslist, seeking an "obedient submissive slut needed for group use" (the Craigslist ad). The Craigslist ad sought a partner willing to participate in various sexual activities, including "hair pulling, bondage, face smacking, double penetration, face fucking, choking, spanking and just rough sex in general." The Craigslist ad "included a questionnaire which asked ... responding part[ies] to provide" their "name, age, height, weight, bra size, race, experience level, done dp, and limits." A woman (M.C.) responded to the Craigslist ad through an email that said, "I think I'm what you're looking for"; included her age, height, weight, bust measurements, and race; and responded to the questionnaire as follows:
M.C. also sent Miles a video of herself masturbating.
¶3 Miles and M.C. exchanged a series of sexually explicit emails, but a few days later, M.C. said she "was no longer curious and was starting to be a little afraid of [Miles's] aggressive nature," so she "stopped replying." Miles, armed with M.C.’s name, found her profile on a social media site and used it to identify her employer and the university she was attending. He emailed M.C., M.C. responded, But Miles replied,
¶4 M.C. did not respond, and Miles sent her another email that threatened to forward their email correspondence and the video of M.C. to her employer, the university, and a local news station if she did not meet him for a sexual encounter. Miles wrote, "I think not only will you lose your job but you'll be on the news and your reputation will probably be ruined." At trial, Miles claimed that after he sent that email, he "recanted [the] statement and told her she did not have to have sex with [him] or anything she did not want to do before she came over." But M.C. denied he withdrew the threat. Much of the parties’ email correspondence, including the one email purportedly withdrawing Miles's threat, was never recovered and thus not introduced at trial.
¶5 M.C. agreed to meet Miles in a parking lot and from there followed him to his residence. She said she did not want to meet him but she "was scared of [the] repercussions" with the university and her employer and did not "want to embarrass" herself or her family.
¶6 Once at Miles's residence, Miles "immediately" told M.C. to undress, and she complied. The two engaged in five sexual acts in the following order: oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex, oral sex, and vaginal sex. After the first instance of oral sex, Miles "told [M.C.] to get on the bed face down" and then he handcuffed her hands behind her back. M.C. remained handcuffed during the first act of vaginal sex and during the anal sex.
¶7 During the anal sex, M.C. testified that she was crying and told Miles, "no," "stop," and that "it hurt." Miles testified that that, before engaging in anal sex, M.C. "said she could handle it" and that they had anal sex "for about a minute to a minute and a half" until "she said she couldn't handle it anymore," when he "immediately stopped." But M.C. testified Miles "continued to penetrate [her] until he ejaculated." After the anal sex, Miles briefly left the room with M.C. lying face down on the bed with her hands still handcuffed. When Miles returned, he uncuffed M.C. and the two smoked marijuana before again engaging in oral and vaginal sex.
¶8 Miles testified that after all the sex acts, M.C. "left rather abruptly." He said M.C. was "visibly upset," Miles said she "seem[ed] a little bit upset that [he] wanted to see her again." M.C., on the other hand, testified that she was "crying and ... saying no" throughout the encounter.
¶9 A few days later, Miles contacted M.C. and said he deleted the video she sent him, but then he claimed he took photographs and videos of their sexual encounter and threatened to send them to the media. At that point, M.C. contacted the police. The State charged Miles with two counts of rape (based on the instances of vaginal sex), and three counts of forcible sodomy (based on the instances of oral sex and the instance of anal sex).
¶10 The case proceeded to a jury trial at which M.C. and Miles each testified. The Craigslist ad was not introduced into evidence. M.C. testified she could not "remember the [Craigslist ad's] exact wording." Miles testified that the title did not "reflect the actual ad" and that there was something "else" in it, but he did not testify to the ad's contents other than that it included the questionnaire, which he said he wrote.
¶11 The State advanced three theories to support M.C.’s lack of consent to the sexual acts. Its primary argument was that Miles extorted M.C. when he threatened to forward their correspondence and the video of M.C. to her employer, the university, and the media. The State also argued that M.C. "told [Miles] no," "to stop," that he "was hurting her," and that "she wanted to leave" throughout the encounter, but Miles "still had to finish." The State also argued that Miles overcame M.C. "through the application of physical force or violence" because he moved her head while she gave him oral sex and he put her in handcuffs. Miles's defense was that M.C. consented to all sexual acts.
¶12 The district court instructed the jury, as relevant here, that to find Miles guilty of forcible sodomy for the anal sex (Count 3), it must "find beyond a reasonable doubt" that Miles "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly committed a sexual act involving any touching of the skin, however slight, of [his] genitals ... and the ... anus of ... M.C.; without M.C.’s consent; and [Miles] acted with intent, knowledge or recklessness that M.C. did not consent."
¶14 The jury acquitted Miles on the four counts stemming from oral and vaginal sex and convicted him of forcible sodomy for Count 3.
¶15 Miles timely appealed, claiming, among other things, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because Trial Counsel did not introduce the contents of the Craigslist ad into evidence. As part of his appeal, Miles asked us for a temporary remand to the district court pursuant to rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure so the court could make additional findings. We granted his motion and remanded to the court to enter factual findings related to:
¶16 At the rule 23B hearing, the Craigslist ad was not introduced, but Trial Counsel, Miles, and M.C. testified to its contents. Trial Counsel testified that he had a copy of the Craigslist ad at the time of trial but chose not to use it because he "knew [he] would be able to elicit" the information from M.C. and Miles. He also said he did not want to send "a printed log ... into the jury room" because it could have made Miles "look more ... reprehensible" to the jury. Trial Counsel also testified that the Craigslist ad included "group sex" and "anal sex" and that Miles told him "specifically" what the ad said, although he could not recall its contents at the time of the rule 23B hearing.
¶17 Miles testified that the Craigslist ad had "a detailed list of the sexual activities," which included "double penetration" and "anal sex." M.C.’s testimony refuted Miles's claim that anal sex was mentioned in the Craigslist ad and characterized his testimony as "incorrect and a lie."
¶18 After taking the matter under advisement, the district court entered factual findings that (1) the Craigslist ad included "hair pulling, bondage, face smacking, double penetration, face fucking, choking, spanking and just rough sex in general," but did not include...
To continue reading
Request your trial