State v. Torres Martinez

2026 UT App 80

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee,
v.
OSWALDO TORRES MARTINEZ,
Appellant.

Opinion
No. 20230326-CA
Filed May 14, 2026

Second District Court, Farmington Department
The Honorable David J. Williams
No. 211702044

Freyja Johnson and Rachel Phillips Ainscough,
Attorneys for Appellant
Derek E. Brown and Aubrey Bisbee,
Attorneys for Appellee

JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion,
in which JUDGES RYAN M. HARRIS and AMY J. OLIVER concurred.

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:

¶1 Oswaldo Torres Martinez was charged with four counts of
aggravated sexual abuse of a child for abusing his daughter, Jane. 1
At trial, the district court allowed six witnesses to testify about
prior unrelated cases in which Torres Martinez had pleaded
guilty to sexual abuse of a minor. The jury convicted Torres
Martinez on all four counts.

¶2 On appeal, Torres Martinez argues that the district court
abused its discretion by allowing the witnesses to testify about the
details underlying his prior convictions, rather than limiting the

1. We use pseudonyms for the victims in this case.
State v. Torres Martinez

evidence to the facts in support of his guilty pleas, as he had
requested. For the reasons discussed, we affirm Torres Martinez’s
convictions.

BACKGROUND

The Abuse Allegations

¶3 When Jane was twelve years old, she disclosed to a
counselor that her father, Torres Martinez, had inappropriately
touched her when she was around five or six years old. The
counselor reported Jane’s allegations to the police. Jane was
interviewed at a Children’s Justice Center (CJC) when she was
thirteen years old.

¶4 During her CJC interview, Jane stated that Torres Martinez
had touched her on three occasions. The first incident occurred
while she was riding alone with Torres Martinez in his truck (the
Truck Incident). The truck had a single bench seat in the front, and
Jane was sitting next to the window while Torres Martinez drove.
Torres Martinez asked Jane to sit closer to him, after which he
pulled her over until they were sitting shoulder to shoulder.
Torres Martinez proceeded to move his hand underneath Jane’s
shirt and rub her bare breast with his hand. He then moved his
hand under Jane’s pants and underwear and began rubbing her
genitals in a side-to-side motion.

¶5 The second incident occurred while Jane and Torres
Martinez were watching a movie together in the upstairs living
room in their house (the Upstairs Incident). Jane and Torres
Martinez were sitting on the floor next to each other with their
backs against the couch. While the movie was playing, Torres
Martinez pulled Jane onto his lap; a blanket was draped over their
legs. Torres Martinez proceeded to put his hands under Jane’s
clothing, placing them first on her breasts and then on her

20230326-CA 2 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

genitals. Although Jane’s mother was sitting in the living room
during the time that this touching was taking place, she was
sitting some distance away, “not in the line of sight.”

¶6 The third incident occurred during another movie night at
their house (the Downstairs Incident). Jane’s cousin, Megan, was
having a sleepover with Jane. The two girls, Torres Martinez, and
Jane’s mother were downstairs in the basement living room of the
house. Jane and Megan were sitting next to each other on one end
of the couch, Torres Martinez was sitting on the other end of the
couch, and Jane’s mother was sitting in a chair near Torres
Martinez. Torres Martinez asked Jane and Megan several times to
move closer to him. Eventually, Torres Martinez pulled both girls
onto his lap. He proceeded to put his hands under Jane’s clothes,
touching her breasts and then her genitals.

¶7 The State charged Torres Martinez with four counts of
aggravated sexual abuse of a child for his abuse of Jane: one count
each for touching Jane’s genitals during the Truck Incident, the
Downstairs Incident, and the Upstairs Incident; and one count for
touching Jane’s breasts during the Upstairs Incident.

The Pretrial Proceedings

¶8 Before trial, the State filed a notice, pursuant to rule 404(c)
of the Utah Rules of Evidence, of its intent to introduce evidence
that Torres Martinez had engaged in other acts of child
molestation. Specifically, the State sought to admit evidence that
Torres Martinez had abused three other child victims: Megan,
Heidi, and Amanda. The notice listed descriptions of the acts the
State anticipated introducing at trial, as well as the fact that Torres
Martinez had pleaded guilty in each of the three associated
criminal cases.

¶9 The district court held a hearing to address the State’s rule
404(c) notice. Torres Martinez objected to allowing the State to call

20230326-CA 3 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

each of the prior victims to testify along with the detectives who
had investigated their respective cases, arguing that allowing all
six witnesses to testify, and allowing testimony about the details
of the previous incidents, would “overwhelm[] the facts of this
case” and “inflame the jury and unfairly prejudice” Torres
Martinez in violation of rule 403. To guard against this concern,
Torres Martinez asked the court to admit the evidence, if at all,
simply “through the lead detective and through certified dockets
or statement[s] in advance of plea.”

¶10 In response, the State asserted that the evidence had high
probative value, noting that the victims in each case were similar
in age, the victims had close relationships with Torres Martinez
(either family members or close family friends), the abuse took
place in similar locations (often the victim’s house), and the type
of abuse was also the same (touching of the breasts and genitals
under the clothing, oftentimes while sitting on Torres Martinez’s
lap). The State also pointed out that all three of the prior cases had
resulted in Torres Martinez pleading guilty. But the State opposed
Torres Martinez’s suggestion that the evidence should come in via
only the limited avenues he had identified. It explained that “in
order to meaningfully assess the appropriate weight” to afford the
evidence, the jury would “need to hear and consider the details of
the previous acts.” Thus, the State asserted that “simply having a
certified conviction of sexual battery” would not provide the jury
with a full understanding of how to interpret the evidence.

¶11 After considering the parties’ arguments, the district court
ruled that the evidence fell within the ambit of rule 404(c) and that
the victims and the detectives in each case could testify about the
acts of child molestation involved in their respective case. The
court explained that while there was “no doubt” that the evidence
was prejudicial, it did not find that “the probative value of the
evidence [was] outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
The court reasoned that rule 404(c) “doesn’t seem to delineate”
how many other acts can be admitted and that “the more [other

20230326-CA 4 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

acts] you have, the more it could show propensity,” which is
“exactly what the rule is designed to allow.” But the court warned
the State that the witnesses would not be allowed to testify about
details “showing things other than propensity to molest
children.”

The Trial

¶12 On the first day of trial, the State called four witnesses:
Jane, Jane’s aunt, an interviewer from the CJC, and the detective
who had investigated Jane’s case. Jane recounted the abuse as
summarized above. Jane’s aunt testified about living with Jane,
including her observations of Jane after Torres Martinez
attempted to speak with Jane on the phone. 2 The CJC interviewer
explained how interviews are generally conducted but did not
testify specifically about Jane’s interview. And the detective
testified that during his investigation of Jane’s allegations against
Torres Martinez, Torres Martinez “denied ever touching [Jane] in
a sexual manner.” The detective also testified that Torres Martinez
had volunteered that he had inappropriately touched Megan but
that after this admission he again “adamantly denied” ever
touching Jane.

¶13 On the second day of trial, Torres Martinez renewed his
objection to the State admitting testimony from six rule 404(c)
witnesses. Although he conceded that the evidence was “certainly
admissible for the purpose of propensity,” he nevertheless took
issue with “the manner in which” the evidence was being
presented. He explained that given the “limited amount of
evidence” (only four witnesses) in the State’s case regarding the
charged crimes, allowing the State to present six rule 404(c)
witnesses would be “excessive” and a rule 403 violation.

2. During this time, Torres Martinez was incarcerated and not
living with Jane.

20230326-CA 5 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

¶14 The district court overruled Torres Martinez’s objection. It
concluded that, in this case, evidence of “[j]ust pleading guilty”
was not enough and that the jury needed to hear “more facts
associated with the prior acts, to allow [it] to make a
determination of . . . whether [those acts do] show a propensity.”
And the court again rejected Torres Martinez’s suggestion that the
number of witnesses would be unduly prejudicial. In so doing,
the court determined that the relevant analysis was not the
“number of inciden[ts]” being presented but was instead whether
“too much within an incident” was being disclosed. After the
district court’s ruling, the trial continued with the State calling
each of the six propensity witnesses.

¶15 Megan testified that Torres Martinez abused her when she
was around seven years old. She explained that one night, she was
watching a movie in the basement of Torres Martinez’s house
with Jane, Torres Martinez, and Jane’s mother. Megan stated that
she and Jane were sitting on the couch with Torres Martinez. She
said that at some point, Jane’s mother left the room and Torres
Martinez pulled both Megan and Jane onto his lap. Megan
testified that Torres Martinez then moved his hand under her
clothing and underwear and touched her “privates.” Megan also
observed Torres Martinez’s hand “go under” Jane’s pants.

¶16 Megan further testified that Torres Martinez touched her
inappropriately two other times that night. She said one incident
took place in a different room in the basement, where Torres
Martinez put his penis in her mouth. The second incident
occurred in Jane’s bedroom. Megan stated that while she was
sleeping next to Jane in Jane’s bed, Torres Martinez came into the
room, pulled down Megan’s pants, and licked her “private areas,
under the waist.”

¶17 The detective who interviewed Torres Martinez as part of
the investigation into Megan’s allegations testified that Torres
Martinez initially denied any inappropriate touching. But the

20230326-CA 6 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

detective explained that as the interview progressed, Torres
Martinez eventually admitted to performing oral sex on Megan,
having her perform oral sex on him, and touching her vagina with
his fingers. The detective also confirmed that Torres Martinez was
charged for his abuse of Megan and that Torres Martinez pleaded
guilty to the charges “fairly quickly.”

¶18 Heidi testified that she did not know Jane, Megan, or
Amanda. She stated that she had met Torres Martinez, who was
friends with her oldest brother, while she was between the ages
of five and nine years old. Heidi did not testify about Torres
Martinez sexually abusing her. However, the detective assigned
to investigate Heidi’s allegations against Torres Martinez testified
about the investigation. The detective stated that Torres Martinez
had admitted to touching Heidi inappropriately while the two
watched movies together. Torres Martinez told the detective that
Heidi would lie on top of Torres Martinez’s legs and he would
rub her stomach until she fell asleep. Torres Martinez also claimed
that he would “grab [Heidi] and place her on his lap,” which
would give him an erection, that “he would keep her on his lap
because he could feel her through the clothing,” and that he did
this for sexual gratification. The detective affirmed that Torres
Martinez was charged criminally for this behavior and that he
pleaded guilty to the charges.

¶19 Amanda testified that she did not know Jane, Megan, or
Heidi. Amanda’s mother dated Torres Martinez when Amanda
was around eleven years old. Amanda recounted that one night
she was having difficulty sleeping so she climbed into bed with
her mother and Torres Martinez. Amanda explained that Torres
Martinez was initially on the “opposite” end of the bed from her
but he switched places with her mother so that he was next to
Amanda. Amanda stated that Torres Martinez then “grabbed
between [her] legs.” He also grabbed her breasts, put his hands in
her pants, and put “his fingers under [her] butt.” Amanda

20230326-CA 7 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

testified that after this there were other occasions where Torres
Martinez touched her breasts and vagina.

¶20 The detective who interviewed Torres Martinez in
connection with Amanda’s allegations testified that Torres
Martinez denied touching Amanda inappropriately. But the
detective acknowledged that charges were filed against Torres
Martinez in Amanda’s case and that Torres Martinez had pleaded
guilty to the charges.

¶21 At the close of trial, the district court instructed the jury
and the attorneys presented closing arguments. The jury
thereafter found Torres Martinez guilty on all counts, and Torres
Martinez now appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶22 Torres Martinez argues that the district court abused its
discretion under rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence by
allowing the State to admit testimony from six witnesses about
the details of his prior convictions for child molestation rather
than limiting the evidence to the facts in support of his guilty
pleas. “We review a [district] court’s evidentiary rulings for an
abuse of discretion. A district court’s decision to admit or exclude
evidence is only an abuse of discretion if it is beyond the limits of
reasonability.” State v. Garcia, 2022 UT App 77, ¶ 25, 526 P.3d 1238
(quotation simplified).

ANALYSIS

¶23 As a general rule, the Utah Rules of Evidence prohibit the
admission of evidence of a person’s prior bad acts “to prove a
person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion
the person acted in conformity with the character.” Utah R. Evid.
404(b)(1). One exception to this general rule is rule 404(c), which

20230326-CA 8 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

allows the court in a child-molestation case to admit “evidence
that the defendant committed any other acts of child molestation”
“to prove propensity to commit the crime charged.” Id. R.
404(c)(2).

¶24 Although the rule 404(c) exception expressly permits the
admission of evidence of “any other acts of child molestation,” see
id., such evidence is admissible only if it satisfies rule 403’s
balancing test, see State v. Fredrick, 2019 UT App 152, ¶ 43, 450 P.3d
1154. That test requires the court to “weigh the evidence’s
probative value against its potential for prejudice.” State v. Ring,
2018 UT 19, ¶ 28, 424 P.3d 845; accord Utah R. Evid. 403. “If the
evidence’s probative value is substantially outweighed by a
danger of unfair prejudice, the evidence should be excluded.”
Ring, 2018 UT 19, ¶ 28 (quotation simplified). Evidence is unfairly
prejudicial “only where the evidence has an undue tendency to
suggest decision upon an improper basis.” State v. Green, 2023 UT
10, ¶ 78, 532 P.3d 930 (quotation simplified).

¶25 In this case, Torres Martinez does not dispute that the
witnesses’ testimonies concerning other acts of molestation were
proper rule 404(c) evidence. Instead, he contends that the district
court abused its discretion by allowing the State to present
testimony from six propensity witnesses, rather than limiting the
State to the factual statements in support of Torres Martinez’s
guilty pleas. He argues that the live testimony did not satisfy the
rule 403 balancing test because it had little probative value and
any probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of
unfair prejudice. This argument is unavailing. 3

3. The State argues that Torres Martinez’s “claim fails at the start”
because the three plea statements are not included in the record.
See Utah R. App. P. 11(c)(2) (stating that “the appellant must
include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant” to any
(continued…)

20230326-CA 9 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

¶26 First, the testimony was highly probative. “In considering
whether a defendant sexually abused a child victim, a jury might
find it extremely probative to learn that the same defendant
sexually abused other children on previous occasions.” Fredrick,
2019 UT App 152, ¶ 43; see also id. ¶ 45 (“[T]he propensity value of
the evidence is precisely what makes rule 404(c) evidence so
highly probative.”). And “the more similar a previous act is to the
act the defendant is accused of committing, the more commission
of a previous act might suggest propensity.” State v. Modes, 2020
UT App 136, ¶ 18, 475 P.3d 153. Torres Martinez’s prior acts were
highly probative of propensity in this case because they were
similar to the charged abuse in that the victims were all young
girls, Torres Martinez had a similar relationship with each of his
victims, much of the abuse occurred in similar settings, and some
of the types of abuse were the same. See Ring, 2018 UT 19, ¶ 30
(“[The defendant’s] prior acts were highly probative in this case
because they were significantly similar as to the age of the victim,
the setting, the opportunity, and [the defendant’s] modus
operandi.”).

¶27 Second, the high probative value of the evidence was not
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Torres Martinez contends that the evidence encouraged the jury
to convict him “out of a fear that he would reoffend in the future,
in accord with his propensity.” But “propensity does not
constitute unfair prejudice” in the rule 404(c) context, “because
the defendant’s propensity to molest children is the reason for

finding or conclusion that the appellant intends to challenge on
appeal). But even without these statements in the record, we can
readily determine that Torres Martinez’s claim would still fail on
the merits because he has not pointed to anything showing that
the witnesses’ live testimonies posed a risk of unfair prejudice. We
therefore proceed to address Torres Martinez’s claim on the
merits.

20230326-CA 10 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

admission under rule 404(c).” State v. Garcia, 2022 UT App 77, ¶ 31,
526 P.3d 1238 (emphasis added) (quotation simplified). Thus, to
demonstrate unfair prejudice, “the defendant must be able to
show something other than the propensity nature of the evidence
that weighs on the prejudice side of the equation.” Fredrick, 2019
UT App 152, ¶ 46; see also Modes, 2020 UT App 136, ¶ 21 (“To
establish prejudice in a rule 404(c) context, a defendant would
have to show that the evidence demonstrates something apart
from the act of sexual molestation of a child . . . .” (quotation
simplified)).

¶28 Citing State v. Cuttler, 2015 UT 95, 367 P.3d 981, Torres
Martinez suggests that the amount of propensity evidence
relative to the State’s other evidence created a risk of unfair
prejudice. While the supreme court in Cuttler did caution that
“unnecessary and emotionally charged details about the [prior]
abuse, such as other accompanying physical abuse,” might render
such evidence unduly prejudicial, id. ¶ 27, the court did not
suggest that the prejudice inquiry should turn on the number of
prior acts introduced. Rather, the court focused on reducing
prejudice by withholding “inflammatory details beyond what is
necessary or appropriate for [the jury] to consider when drawing
[a] propensity inference.” Id. Other than complaining about the
number of witnesses that testified, Torres Martinez has not
pointed to any specific details from the testimony that constitute
the type of “inflammatory details” our supreme court warned
may be inappropriate. See id.4

4. Aside from prejudice, rule 404(c) evidence may fail the rule 403
balancing test if it is needlessly cumulative. See Utah R. Evid. 403
(stating that evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is
substantially outweighed” by the danger of “needlessly
presenting cumulative evidence”); see also State v. Christian, 2025
UT App 112, ¶ 34, 575 P.3d 293 (explaining that “separate from the
(continued…)

20230326-CA 11 2026 UT App 80
State v. Torres Martinez

CONCLUSION

¶29 The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
testimony from six rule 404(c) witnesses. The evidence was highly
probative, and Torres Martinez has not pointed to anything other
than the propensity nature of the evidence that would render the
evidence unfairly prejudicial.

¶30 Affirmed.

danger of unfair prejudice,” evidence may be inadmissible if it is
“needlessly cumulative” (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 578 P.3d
751 (Utah 2025). But Torres Martinez has not argued that the
evidence in this case should have been excluded as needlessly
cumulative. Rather, his argument is that unfair prejudice arose
from the number of witnesses. In any event, even if the evidence
could be considered cumulative in some regards, we cannot say
that it was needlessly cumulative. The State called two witnesses—
the victim and the investigating detective—with regard to each of
the three prior acts of child molestation. As the district court
recognized, “[T]he more [other acts] you have, the more it could
show propensity. And that’s exactly what [rule 404(c)] is designed
to allow.”

20230326-CA 12 2026 UT App 80