Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

State v. Cox – Case Brief Summary (Utah)

In State v. Cox, 787 P.2d 4 (Utah Ct. App. 1990), the Utah Court of Appeals held that the similarities between two incidents were not sufficient.

Those similarities were that the:

(1) defendant knew each victim;

(2) defendant had nonconsensual intercourse, at each victims' home, while the victims' boyfriends or husbands were not home;

(3) defendant was uninvited and began the assaults soon after entering the home;

(4) defendant laid on top of the victims;

(5) defendant did not completely remove his clothing or the victims' clothing, and in each instance, attempted to kiss the victim on the face and neck;

(6) defendant left the premises after completing the assault. 787 P.2d at 6.

The Cox Court concluded that the defendant's actions did not constitute common design or modus operandi. Id.