Appellate Procedure: To Prevail, a Defendant Must Not Only Show Error, but Must Demonstrate the Harm Caused by Judicial Error

State v. Otterson, 2010 UT App 388 (Utah Court of Appeals December 30, 2010).

Otterson was convicted of child sodomy and child rape.  Otterson appealed arguing that (1) the State had failed to provide a bill of particulars; (2) the Court erred when it denied the Defendant’s access to the victim’s medical records; and (3) the court erred when it admitted evidence of prior bad acts without proper notice.

The Court of Appeals found that the State provided a bill of particulars with the best information it knew.  Even if the Bill lacked specificity, Defendant failed to identify how it damaged the defense.  Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s ruling on medical records because it properly performed an in camera review according to Defendant’s request and found no helpful information.  Defendant also failed to preserve his argument that the Court misunderstood his request, because he failed to bring any misunderstanding to the trial court’s attention.  Lastly, Defendant neither specifically identified any improperly admitted prior bad act evidence nor explained how his defense was damaged thereby.  Affirmed on all issues.

Full Decision available atState v. Otterson, 2010 UT App 388 (Utah Court of Appeals December 30, 2010).

Otterson was convicted of child sodomy and child rape.  Otterson appealed arguing that (1) the State had failed to provide a bill of particulars; (2) the Court erred when it denied the Defendant’s access to the victim’s medical records; and (3) the court erred when it admitted evidence of prior bad acts without proper notice.

The Court of Appeals found that the State provided a bill of particulars with the best information it knew.  Even if the Bill lacked specificity, Defendant failed to identify how it damaged the defense.  Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s ruling on medical records because it properly performed an in camera review according to Defendant’s request and found no helpful information.  Defendant also failed to preserve his argument that the Court misunderstood his request, because he failed to bring any misunderstanding to the trial court’s attention.  Lastly, Defendant neither specifically identified any improperly admitted prior bad act evidence nor explained how his defense was damaged thereby.  Affirmed on all issues.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/otterson123010.pdf