Evidence of Repeated Acts of Rape and Child Molestation: Reforming Utah Law to Permit the Propensity Inference

On January 17, 1997, the Utah Supreme Court reversed Michael Doporto's conviction for sodomy on a child. The court concluded that the prosecution had improperly introduced "other crimes" evidence-also known as prior crimes, prior bad acts, or pattern evidence to establish Doporto's guilt. In this Article, we take the view that the court's ruling was unsound. The court should have instead held that such prior crimes evidence is generally admissible in sex offense cases, to show not only a defendant's motive or plan in committing the crime, but more generally his propensity to commit such crimes.

The issue is nicely framed by the facts of the Doporto case. We set them out at some length because they reveal the extraordinary effect on individuals that seemingly dry legal decisions can have. On a summer evening in 1988, then seven-year-old Azure Wakefield went to the home of her best friend for a sleep over. During that evening, her friend's father, Michael Doporto, approached Azure and rubbed lotion on the inside of her legs.

Later in the evening, Doporto again entered the room and forcibly performed anal sex on Azure. After he left, Azure cried herself to sleep.