J.R. v. State of Utah (In re J.R.)

J.R. v. State of Utah (In re J.R.)

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of J.R., a person under eighteen years of age.
______________________________

J.R.,
Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,
Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010964-CA

F I L E D
(January 16, 2003)

2003 UT App 9

-----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Robert S. Yeates

Attorneys: Robert L. Donohoe, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Brett J. DelPorto, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Orme.

ORME, Judge:

"Unless the findings [of fact] are against the clear weight of the evidence, we will not set the juvenile court's findings aside." In re L.M., 2001 UT App 314,¶11, 37 P.3d 1188. In addition, juvenile courts are given a "'wide latitude of discretion as to the judgments arrived at' based upon not only the court's opportunity to judge credibility firsthand, but also based on the juvenile court judges' 'special training, experience and interest in this field, and . . . devot[ed] . . . attention to such matters.'" In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66,¶11, 21 P.3d 680 (quoting In re F.D., 14 Utah 2d 47, 376 P.2d 948, 951 (1962)) (alterations in original).

Whether Appellant committed an act of sodomy turned on the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court, despite minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, was convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim was telling the truth. See State v. Gentry, 747 P.2d 1032, 1039 (Utah 1987) ("The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to conflicting testimony are matters within the province of the [fact-finder]."). Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Appellant sodomized the victim in this case.

We review the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion for a new trial only for an abuse of discretion. See Christenson v. Jewkes, 761 P.2d 1375, 1377 (Utah 1988). Appellant's argument that the victim was so visually impaired that she could not properly identify him, and that as a result he was entitled to a new trial, is wholly unpersuasive given the evidence presented. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

The argument concerning the victim's visual limitations undercuts Appellant's claim that her testimony was coached. Assuming the victim could not see clearly enough to identify Appellant, it is difficult to understand how she could see her mother clearly enough to pick up on physical cues that would amount to coaching, from approximately twenty feet away, without the court clerk, the bailiff, or even the judge noticing it. In addition, many of the questions posed to the victim were not capable of "yes" or "no" answers, making it even less likely that coaching occurred.

Affirmed.

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge