State v. Singh
Decision Date | 17 November 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 20091030–CA.,20091030–CA. |
Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BHAG SINGH, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David M. Perry, Logan, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Kris C. Leonard, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges ORME, ROTH, and CHRISTIANSEN.
¶ 1 Defendant Bhag Singh appeals his conviction for sexual abuse of a child, see Utah Code Ann. § 76–5–404.1(2) (2008), following a bench trial. We affirm.
¶ 2 On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in finding him guilty based on insufficient evidence; by not ensuring that Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial; by granting the State's motion to allow two witnesses to testify via closed circuit television (CCTV); and by not following the requirements of rule 15.5 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure to admit such testimony. In addition, Defendant claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's rule 15.5 motion, the State's motion to admit evidence of Defendant's prior bad act under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence, and when the State allegedly called Defendant a liar during closing argument. Finally, Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion when sentencing Defendant.
¶ 3 Defendant fails to properly brief most of his claims. “ ‘Our rules of appellate procedure clearly set forth the requirements that appellants and appellees must meet when submitting briefs before this court.’ ” Beehive Tel. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 2004 UT 18, ¶ 12, 89 P.3d 131 (quoting MacKay v. Hardy, 973 P.2d 941, 947–48 (Utah 1998)); see also Utah R.App. P. 24(a). An issue is inadequately briefed “when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court.” State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998); see also State v. Honie, 2002 UT 4, ¶ 67, 57 P.3d 977 (), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 863, 123 S.Ct. 257, 154 L.Ed.2d 105 (2002).
¶ 4 Defendant fails to provide supporting record citations, 1 see Utah R.App. P. 24(a)(9) ( ), makes conclusory statements about the elements of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims,2 and fails to develop the legal authority that supports his arguments.3 See State v. Gamblin, 2000 UT 44, ¶¶ 6–7, 1 P.3d 1108 ( ). Accordingly, we decline to address his inadequately briefed arguments. See id. ¶ 8 . Thus, we address only Defendant's claims that insufficient evidence supported his conviction, that the trial court plainly erred by allowing the witnesses to testify via CCTV pursuant to rule 15.5 and by employing the procedure used during that testimony, and that the trial court plainly erred by failing to ensure that Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial.
¶ 5 Defendant argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction.4 “When reviewing a bench trial for sufficiency of [the] evidence, we must sustain the trial court's judgment unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence, or ... the appellate court otherwise reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” See State v. Larsen, 2000 UT App 106, ¶ 10, 999 P.2d 1252 (internal quotation marks omitted).
¶ 6 Specifically, Defendant asserts that the State produced no evidence to prove that he acted with an intent to arouse or sexually gratify himself. 5 Defendant acknowledges that the victim and another witness both testified to similar experiences with Defendant touching and kissing them, and acknowledges that the other witness's testimony “was important for the State in order to attempt to show the [Defendant's] state of mind ... when the touching of [the victim] occurred.” However, Defendant suggests that such testimony was incredible and that the court should have relied on Defendant's own testimony at trial that he was not aroused by his actions.
¶ 7 The trial court, rather than this court, is responsible for determining the credibility of a witness and assigning the proper weight to his or her testimony. See Salt Lake City v. Hughes, 2011 UT App 128, ¶ 5, 253 P.3d 1118 (mem.) ( ; see also State v. Davis, 711 P.2d 232, 234 (Utah 1985) (per curiam) ( . In finding Defendant guilty, the court clearly found the testimony of the victim and the other witness credible.
¶ 8 With the court's credibility determination in mind, we consider whether the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to establish Defendant's intent to arouse or sexually gratify himself. “[I]ntent is a state of mind generally to be inferred from the person's conduct viewed in light of all the accompanying circumstances.” State v. Watkins, 2011 UT App 96, ¶ 17, 250 P.3d 1019 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. granted, No. 20110458, 262 P.3d 1187 (Utah Aug. 4, 2011); see also Davis, 711 P.2d at 234 ().
¶ 9 The eleven-year-old victim testified that during a sleepover with Defendant's daughter (Daughter), Defendant came into Daughter's bedroom after Daughter had left the room but while Defendant's son was still in the room under the bed covers. Defendant sat on the bed next to the victim. As he told the victim that he liked her and loved her, Defendant moved closer to her. Defendant then told her again that he loved her and rubbed her breasts approximately three times in an up and down motion. Defendant then leaned in and kissed the victim, sticking his tongue into her mouth as he did so. Another witness also testified that while at a sleepover with Daughter, Defendant sat next to the witness on the bed after Daughter had left the room. Defendant told the witness that he loved her, kissed her on the mouth, and then wiped his saliva off her mouth.
¶ 10 Given the similarity of the witnesses' testimony regarding the sexual nature of Defendant's actions and the trial court's credibility determinations, sufficient evidence supported the court's inference that Defendant committed his acts against the victim with the intent to arouse or sexually gratify himself. See Watkins, 2011 UT App 96, ¶ 18, 250 P.3d 1019 ( ; State v. Maness, 2010 UT App 370U, para. 4, 2010 WL 5452078 (mem.) (concluding that “the jury could properly draw the inference that defendant had the intent to arouse his own sexual desire” where he had “intentionally touched the victims' breasts and genitalia; did not obtain written permission from the victims before touching their breasts; manipulated the cloth drape, entered the room early, and lingered in the room following massages, allowing him to view the victims' naked bodies; touched the victims' genitalia during a massage procedure that should be performed without touching the genitalia; and touched the victims' breasts in a location and manner that would never be part of massage therapy, even if there had been written consent” (internal quotation marks omitted)); In re B.K., 2000 UT App 302U, 2000 WL 33243776, paras. 2, 4 (mem.) (per curiam) (affirming a conviction where the victim testified that the defendant digitally penetrated her vagina while pulling on her swimsuit and noting that because the court found the victim's testimony more credible than the defendant's testimony, the court “could properly draw the inference that [the] defendant had the intent to arouse or gratify his own sexual desire” (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Hall, 946 P.2d 712, 724 (Utah Ct.App.1997) () , cert. denied, 953 P.2d 449 (Utah 1998).
¶ 11 Defendant argues...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Isom, 20130740–CA.
...presence would cause the child witnesses to suffer emotional or mental strain or cause them to be unreliable witnesses.” State v. Bhag Singh, 2011 UT App 396, ¶ 12, 267 P.3d 281. Isom argues that because “[n]o such proof [of emotional or mental strain] was presented, and no findings were ma......
-
State v. Stricklan
...to " ‘touchy/feely’ aspects of sex, and the abuse [the victim] reported coincide[d] with this admitted addiction"); State v. Singh , 2011 UT App 396, 267 P.3d 281 (finding circumstantial evidence of intent to include expressions of love and kissing the victim); State v. Maness , 2010 UT App......
-
State v. Finlayson
...that a defendant may waive his or her right to a jury trial if the waiver is knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made." State v. Bhag Singh, 2011 UT App 396, ¶ 13, 267 P.3d 281. "Courts must ensure that such waivers are knowing, voluntary, and intelligent." State v. Hassan, 2004 UT 99......
-
State v. Burnside
...these actions [by counsel] were objectively deficient or describe how they prejudiced his defense if they were"); see also State v. Singh , 2011 UT App 396, ¶ 4, 267 P.3d 281 (declining to address defendant's inadequately briefed arguments because defendant "fail[ed] to provide supporting r......