# State v. Rimmasch

> Utah Supreme Court · May 17, 1989 · 108 Utah Adv. Rep. 20

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586949

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Phillip RIMMASCH, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 17, 1989
- **Citations:** 108 Utah Adv. Rep. 20; 775 P.2d 388; 1989 Utah LEXIS 41; 1989 WL 55371
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Hall
- **Judges:** Zimmerman, Durham, Hall, Howe, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 146 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in State v. Maestas.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586949

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding, but not in the context of an ineffective assistance claim, that there was a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome when the case "hinged on a determination of eredibility," there was no corroborating physical evidence, and the victim's version of events …
- stating that to provide foundation for novel scientific principles, the court should explore such questions as “the correctness of the scientific principles underlying the testimony” and “the accuracy and reliability of the techniques utilized in applying the principles to the…
- holding that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence an expert's testimony regarding credibility of a victim, where the testimony at issue comprised almost two-thirds of the trial transcript, occupied several trial days, and exerted a "pervasive impact" on the trial
- holding that an expert’s testimony that he believed the victim was telling the truth was inadmissible bolstering
- holding that an expert's testimony that he did not think the victim had a motive to lie about her abuse was bolstering

## Opinion text

HALL, Chief Justice
(concurring and dissenting):
I agree that the trial court erred in admitting the opinion evidence of the State’s expert witness. However, I am not persuaded that the error was other than harmless.
The case was tried to the court, sitting without a jury, and the evidence of the 17-year-old victim, standing alone, is sufficient to meet the State’s burden of proof. I am thus of the view that in the absence of the evidentiary error, there would not have been a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for defendant.
I would affirm the conviction and judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586949. Public record. Not legal advice.