State v. Jacobsen

2025 UT App 73

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee,
v.
BRANDON LEE JACOBSEN,
Appellant.

Opinion
No. 20220103-CA
Filed May 22, 2025

Second District Court, Farmington Department
The Honorable David J. Williams
No. 201700833

Scott L. Wiggins, Attorney for Appellant
Derek E. Brown and Michael Gadd,
Attorneys for Appellee

JUDGE RYAN M. HARRIS authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES JOHN D. LUTHY and AMY J. OLIVER concurred.

HARRIS, Judge:

¶1 After the district court decided to admit his confession into
evidence, Brandon Lee Jacobsen entered a conditional guilty plea
to a charge of attempted sexual abuse of a child. He now appeals,
challenging the court’s order admitting the confession and
arguing that the confession is not sufficiently trustworthy. We
reject Jacobsen’s arguments and affirm his conviction.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2019, Jacobsen’s wife was “really, really good friends”
with a co-worker (Mother) who was a single mother of several
State v. Jacobsen

children, including then-two-year-old Mary. 1 In an effort to help
Mother manage the burden of single motherhood, Jacobsen’s wife
and teenage daughter would often babysit Mary at their house,
“normally on the weekend.” As a result, Mary became close to
Jacobsen’s family and eventually came to refer to Jacobsen as
“Uncle,” even though Jacobsen had no blood relation to Mary or
her family. At least twice during the summer of 2019, Jacobsen
and his family took Mary to Lagoon, a local amusement park,
during her weekends with them.

¶3 In early 2020, however, Mother’s relationship with
Jacobsen and his family began to deteriorate. In January, Mother
learned that Jacobsen had a criminal record; she “researched it”
and discovered that Jacobsen was “on the sex offender registry.”
Indeed, Jacobsen had been convicted, in 1995, of attempted sexual
abuse of a child; that case had been resolved by a guilty plea in
which Jacobsen had acknowledged in writing that he understood
that, because he had been charged with a felony crime, he had an
array of applicable constitutional rights, including the right to be
represented by an attorney.

¶4 In February 2020, when Mary was almost three years old
and “potty training,” she complained to Mother that “she was
itchy and it was hurting.” Mother took Mary to a doctor, who
examined Mary and discovered that Mary had molluscum—a
highly contagious rash—around her anal area, which apparently
can be transmitted via “anal sex.” The doctor asked Mother if
Mary had experienced “sexual abuse.” At that time, Mother was
unaware of any such abuse. But soon thereafter, Mary and Mother
were “playing babies” when Mary told Mother that “Uncle
touched [her]” in her “peepee area.” As Mary made the statement,
she pointed to “[t]he doll’s vagina.” Soon after that, Mother
notified police.

1. A pseudonym.

20220103-CA 2 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

¶5 Mary was then interviewed at the Children’s Justice Center
(CJC) by a “full-time, professional” child interviewer. During the
interview, however, Mary did not repeat the allegation she had
made to Mother. When asked whether “something happen[ed]
that [they] need[ed] to talk about” or something that Mary didn’t
“think was right,” Mary replied, “Mm, no.”

¶6 As part of the investigation, Jacobsen was interviewed by
a police detective (Detective). After being provided with Miranda
warnings, Jacobsen “elect[ed] to proceed with the interview.”
During the interview, Jacobsen denied that he had ever touched
Mary inappropriately. Before the interview ended, Detective
asked if Jacobsen would be “willing to do a polygraph” test, and
Jacobsen agreed, later telling Detective that he wanted to “try to
clear [his] name.” The polygraph was then scheduled for a few
weeks later.

¶7 On the day of the polygraph examination—which was a
Friday—Jacobsen woke up and went to work at around 7:00 a.m.
While at work, Jacobsen ate a banana and two sandwiches.
Jacobsen arrived home at about 3:30 p.m., at which point he “took
a shower and just sat on the bed and watched a little TV.”
Jacobsen then drove himself to the polygraph appointment, which
was scheduled for 5:00 p.m. Jacobsen later stated that he had been
hungry during the polygraph examination, but he did not share
this sentiment with anyone at the time. Before beginning the
polygraph, Jacobsen signed a consent form, which included a
section entitled “Your Rights.” That section informed Jacobsen
that he had “the right to refuse to take the polygraph test,” “the
right to stop the test at anytime,” and “the right to refuse to
answer any individual question.” The consent form also informed
Jacobsen that the “polygraph examination may be monitored or
recorded.” During his time at the polygraph appointment,
Jacobsen had access to a restroom and water. Jacobsen was also
notified, again, of his Miranda rights; before the polygraph began,
Jacobsen signed a form captioned “Advice of Rights” that
contained the Miranda warnings, including that he had “the right

20220103-CA 3 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

to remain silent,” “the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before”
any questions were put to him, and “the right to have a lawyer
with [him] during questioning.”

¶8 The examination was performed at the police station by a
special agent (Agent) with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI). Agent later testified that, per FBI policy, he was not allowed
to “carry or wear a firearm during a polygraph or display [his]
badge or handcuffs or anything like that,” and that he did not do
so on this occasion. Prior to beginning the interview, Agent asked
Jacobsen some background questions for a “biographical data
sheet.” Jacobsen’s answers to those questions established that he
was forty-five years old, was married, was in good health, had
graduated from high school and had some college education, and
was employed. Jacobsen also stated that he had slept seven hours
the previous night. He indicated that his only “psychiatric or
psychological treatment” had been for “sex offender treatment
rehabilitation” while he had been in prison for his prior offense.
Jacobsen also told Agent that he had an “attraction toward young
kids” and had “fantasies . . . about young girls.”

¶9 Agent did not have polygraph questions prepared prior to
meeting Jacobsen; instead, Agent and Jacobsen worked together
to “build” a set of nine questions that Agent believed were “going
to be fair to” Jacobsen. During the ensuing examination, which
lasted between fifteen and thirty minutes, Agent asked Jacobsen
only the nine questions that they had discussed beforehand. In
Agent’s view, Jacobsen appeared to give deceptive answers to
some of the questions; Agent’s interpretation of the examination
results was later confirmed by Agent’s supervisor. Agent did not
record the actual polygraph examination, but he did record the
question-and-answer session that followed the examination; that
interview lasted about an hour.

¶10 In an effort to “let [Jacobsen] know that he did not do well
on the exam,” Agent told Jacobsen that he “absolutely kn[e]w
there was some type of sexual contact that [Jacobsen] had with

20220103-CA 4 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

[Mary].” At first, Jacobsen denied any wrongdoing, stating that
he had “never intentionally touched [Mary] in any sexual way.”
Agent followed up, positing that, while he did not believe “it’s
something that [Jacobsen does] all the time,” Jacobsen may have
“put [himself] in a position that [he] shouldn’t have been in.”
Eventually, after several iterations of Agent telling Jacobsen that
he “believe[d]” Jacobsen was just “a guy who made a mistake,”
Jacobsen volunteered that he had “actually just remembered one
time” the previous summer when Mary had been “at Lagoon”
with him and his family. Jacobsen explained that he had been
asked “to take [Mary] into the bathroom” and that he “had to
wipe her.” Jacobsen explained that “when [he] wiped her [his
hand] could have gone deeper [than] she’s used to,” but that
“there was toilet paper between her vagina and [his] hand.” When
asked, Jacobsen agreed that he “intentionally put [his] finger with
the toilet paper in-between her vaginal lips.” Agent then asked
Jacobsen to trace his hand and mark which finger was used to
touch Mary, and Jacobsen indicated that he had done so with his
middle finger. Agent then asked Jacobsen, “Why did you do
that?,” and Jacobsen responded that he had “[p]robably
rationalize[d] it by saying [he] was getting all . . . the pee out” but
that he “probably most likely . . . just wanted to feel it.”

¶11 At the end of the interview, Agent asked Jacobsen several
questions about whether he felt like he had been “treated fairly”
during the course of the examination and interview, whether he
got “an opportunity to explain [him]self in [his] own words,”
whether the “questions . . . ha[d] been fair,” and whether he
“understood the process and everything [Agent] asked [him].”
Jacobsen answered all of these questions in the affirmative.

¶12 At this point, Detective entered the room, and Agent
recounted for Detective what Jacobsen had just told him: that
Jacobsen had admitted to inserting his middle finger into Mary’s
vagina and that he had done so on purpose and “for sexual
gratification.” Jacobsen affirmed that Agent had “relate[d]” the
story accurately to Detective. Detective then asked Jacobsen if he

20220103-CA 5 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

would “be willing to write [Mother] a letter and . . . explain some
of this to her,” which Jacobsen agreed to do. In that letter, which
was addressed to Mother, Jacobsen wrote the following:

I’m sorry about what I did to [Mary]. It was when
she was potty training and we took her to Lagoon. I
was the one who took her to the bathroom and when
I wiped her I put my middle finger in between the
lips of her vagina. I’m sorry for what I put you and
your children through[;] that was not my intent. I’m
sorry that [Mary] was hurt. This is all on me and not
on [my family] or anybody else.

After that, Jacobsen left the police station and drove himself
home. Before he left, Detective suggested to Jacobsen that it might
be wise for him to put his “affairs in order.”

¶13 Jacobsen was subsequently arrested and charged with one
count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony.
As he was being arrested, Jacobsen recanted his confession,
stating that he “didn’t do anything wrong” and that he had just
“wiped the two-year-old” who “was potty training.” Detective
explained to Jacobsen that his prior confession had been recorded,
a fact that appeared to surprise Jacobsen.

¶14 Later, Jacobsen filed a motion asking the district court to
bar the State from presenting, as evidence at trial, three items:
(1) his confession, (2) the results of his polygraph examination,
and (3) the statements Mary made to Mother about the incident.
As relevant here, Jacobsen argued that his confession was
untrustworthy, and should not be admitted into evidence,
because “the State cannot corroborate it with other evidence” and
because the confession was “induced by psychological
manipulation that amounts to coercion.” Regarding coercion,
Jacobsen asserted that, if he had requested an attorney at the
outset of the polygraph examination, he would have had to wait
for one until after the weekend and would have needed to spend

20220103-CA 6 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

the weekend in jail; that he had been hungry and tired; and that
Agent “took advantage” of Jacobsen’s mindset and “used
minimization techniques,” among other things.

¶15 The court then held a three-day evidentiary hearing
regarding Jacobsen’s motion. On the first day, the court heard
testimony from Mary, Mother, Agent, Detective, and a physician
who had examined Mary. Mother, Detective, and Agent all
testified about the events described above. In addition, Agent
testified about the interview techniques he employs generally and
the specific techniques he employed in interviewing Jacobsen. In
particular, Agent discussed Jacobsen’s transition during the
interview from an outright denial to finally describing in detail
the Lagoon incident. Agent also clarified that at no point during
the interview did he display a weapon, “use any
misrepresentations,” “threaten [Jacobsen] with physical abuse,”
or “give the implication that [Jacobsen] would be treated more
leniently if he confessed.”

¶16 On the second day, as relevant here, an expert on
confessions (Expert) testified on Jacobsen’s behalf. Expert testified
about the prevalence of false confessions, methods of coercion,
and ways in which coercion can result in a false confession. Expert
also opined on the effects of “physical factors” such as being tired
or hungry.

¶17 Jacobsen also testified. He discussed his experience with
the polygraph examination. In particular, Jacobsen stated that he
thought “there would be no audio or video recording of the
session.” He also stated that he was not “told that [he] could leave
at any time,” and that he was told he could leave only after the
examination and interview. Jacobsen also denied any
wrongdoing. While Jacobsen did admit to taking Mary to the
restroom at Lagoon, he asserted that nothing untoward had
occurred and that Mary “wiped” and then “got down and pulled
up her panties” by herself. Jacobsen stated that he told Agent
“that [he] had wiped her” only because Agent “wasn’t going to

20220103-CA 7 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

let [him] go home until he heard what he wanted to hear.” Finally,
Jacobsen testified that he had never had molluscum.

¶18 The district court took the matter under advisement, and it
later issued a written ruling granting Jacobsen’s motion in part
and denying it in part. The court granted the motion with regard
to Mary’s statements to Mother and to the polygraph examination
results, and it determined that those items of evidence would not
be admitted at trial. With regard to Jacobsen’s confession,
however, the court denied the motion and ruled that the
confession would be admitted into evidence at trial.

¶19 In determining whether the confession was sufficiently
trustworthy, the court began its analysis by considering four
factors: the presence of an attorney; the spontaneity of the
statement; Jacobsen’s physical and mental condition; and the
presence (or absence) of deception, tricks, threats, or promises.
The court noted that, while there was “no attorney . . . present
during [Jacobsen’s] confession,” Jacobsen had known about the
upcoming polygraph for “some time,” had agreed to the
polygraph, had been advised of his rights, and was “not
unfamiliar with the criminal process.” Accordingly, the court
determined that this factor weighed “only slightly” “against
trustworthiness.” The court determined that the second factor—
spontaneity—was neutral because, although the confession was
“made as a result of persistent questioning,” Jacobsen had
provided the details of the incident completely on his own. The
court found that Jacobsen’s “positive physical and mental
condition” weighed in favor of trustworthiness because of his age,
education, and prior involvement with the criminal justice
system. The court was unpersuaded by Jacobsen’s argument that
he had been tired and hungry, finding that he had had sufficient
“opportunity” to resolve those issues before driving himself to the
polygraph examination. Finally, the court found that there was a
relative absence of deception or coercion because Agent never
displayed a badge or firearm, the “entire meeting . . . lasted less

20220103-CA 8 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

than three hours,” and Agent’s techniques were not “so inherently
coercive as to overcome [Jacobsen’s] will.”

¶20 Subsequently, Jacobsen pled guilty to “an amended charge
of attempted sexual abuse of a child, a third-degree felony.” In
entering that plea, however, Jacobsen reserved his right—
pursuant to rule 11(j) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure and
State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935 (Utah Ct. App. 1988)—to appeal the
court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of his confession.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶21 Jacobsen now exercises his reserved right to appeal the
district court’s determination that his “confession was sufficiently
trustworthy to be admitted into evidence.” A district court’s
determination regarding the trustworthiness of a confession “is a
legal determination” that “we review for correctness.” In re D.D.,
2021 UT App 100, ¶ 26, 500 P.3d 868.

ANALYSIS

¶22 Jacobsen assigns error to the district court’s determination
that his confession, made during the interview following his
polygraph examination, was sufficiently trustworthy to be
admitted into evidence. In assessing Jacobsen’s challenge, we
begin with a discussion of the governing legal principles and
caselaw, and then we transition into an evaluation of the totality
of the circumstances at play here, including various factors
identified by our supreme court. In the end, we discern no error
in the district court’s decision.

A

¶23 Until 2003, Utah applied the “orthodox corpus delicti” rule
to questions regarding the admissibility of a defendant’s

20220103-CA 9 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

extrajudicial confession. See State v. Mauchley, 2003 UT 10, ¶ 18, 67
P.3d 477; see also In re D.D., 2021 UT App 100, ¶ 32, 500 P.3d 868.
Under that rule, “an extrajudicial confession, by itself,” was not
considered “sufficient to sustain a conviction of a crime,” and
such a confession could not be admitted into evidence against the
defendant “unless there [was] other corroborative evidence of the
crime.” See Mauchley, 2003 UT 10, ¶ 12 (cleaned up). Thus, if the
only evidence indicating that the defendant had committed a
crime was the defendant’s own uncorroborated extrajudicial
confession, the confession could not be admitted into evidence.

¶24 In Mauchley, however, our supreme court “joined the
federal courts and a growing number of state courts in
abandoning the [orthodox] corpus delicti rule in favor of [a] new
version of the corroboration rule.” See In re D.D., 2021 UT App
100, ¶ 32 (cleaned up); accord Mauchley, 2003 UT 10, ¶¶ 19, 48. The
new rule focuses on “corroboration of the confession itself rather
than corroboration that a crime was committed.” In re D.D., 2021
UT App 100, ¶ 32 (cleaned up). In moving away from the
orthodox corpus delicti rule, our supreme court noted that it was
“not eliminating the corroboration rule,” because it recognized
that “the need still exists to prevent errors in convictions based
upon untrue confessions alone.” Mauchley, 2003 UT 10, ¶ 47
(cleaned up); see also id. ¶ 50 (stating that “the precept still stands
that no defendant can be convicted solely on the basis of an
uncorroborated out-of-court confession” (cleaned up)). The court
referred to its new rule as “the trustworthiness standard,” which
asks courts to consider, under “the totality of the circumstances,”
“whether a defendant’s confession is sufficiently trustworthy or
reliable to be admitted into evidence.” Id. ¶¶ 19, 47–48, 58.

¶25 Under this standard, “the State must introduce substantial
independent evidence which would tend to establish the
trustworthiness of the confession.” Id. ¶ 50 (cleaned up). But to
meet this standard, the State “need not necessarily [produce]
independent evidence of the crime.” Id. ¶ 51. Instead, the State
may “establish the trustworthiness of the confession with other

20220103-CA 10 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

evidence typically used to bolster the credibility and reliability of
an out-of-court statement.” Id. (cleaned up). And to assist courts
in making this assessment, our supreme court listed some
“factors” that “have applicability in determining the
trustworthiness of confessions.” Id. ¶ 52. For instance, courts may
consider “evidence as to the spontaneity of the statement; the
absence of deception, trick, threats, or promises to obtain the
statement; the defendant’s positive physical and mental
condition, including age, education, and experience; and the
presence of an attorney when the statement is given.” Id.

¶26 This list of factors is not intended to be exhaustive, and the
court emphasized that, as a general matter, “the overall facts and
circumstances related in the confession must be consistent with
facts otherwise known or established.” Id. ¶ 53 (cleaned up). In
particular, the court noted that “a demonstrably wrong statement
may indicate that a confession is false,” and the court offered this
illustrative example: “[I]f a man spontaneously confesses that he
fondled a child, but the evidence demonstrates he was never in
physical proximity with the child, his confession is likely
untrustworthy because the facts related in the confession are
inconsistent with otherwise known or established facts.” Id.

¶27 Several years later, in In re D.D., 2021 UT App 100, 500 P.3d
868, we applied the trustworthiness standard in a case involving
a juvenile who confessed, in several different communications, to
sexually touching his niece and nephew. In that case, we
determined that the confessions at issue were sufficiently
trustworthy to be admitted, even though the confessor was a
juvenile, had mental health issues, was “on the autism spectrum,”
and had at one point previously been determined to be
incompetent to stand trial. Id. ¶¶ 2, 16. In making our decision, we
considered the four listed Mauchley factors: “spontaneity of the
statement; the absence of deception . . . ; the defendant’s positive
physical and mental condition . . . ; and the presence of an attorney
when the statement [was] given.” Id. ¶ 33 (cleaned up).

20220103-CA 11 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

¶28 In considering spontaneity, we noted that “spontaneous”
is a word that “can take on subtly different definitions, depending
on how the word is used.” Id. ¶ 35. In one sense, “spontaneous”
means “something developing or occurring without apparent
external influence, . . . or arising from a momentary impulse.” Id.
(cleaned up). But in another sense, “spontaneous” can mean
“controlled and directed internally” and “not apparently
contrived or manipulated.” Id. ¶ 36 (cleaned up). Applying these
definitions, we determined that the juvenile’s confessions in
response to police questioning met this second definition of
spontaneity—even though the “questions posed” by the officers
“were the stimuli that got [the juvenile] talking”—because the
juvenile “volunteered . . . detailed information . . . without any
cajoling.” Id. We further determined that there was a lack of
deception or trickery on the part of police, in part because the
juvenile confessed following “very straightforward, open-ended”
questioning to which he “responded with lengthy narratives and
explanations.” Id. ¶ 38. We also observed that “there [was] no
indication that [the juvenile’s] mental disorder affected the
trustworthiness of his confessions.” Id. ¶ 40. Finally, we noted that
the confessions were “consistent with facts otherwise known or
established,” including the undisputed fact that the juvenile “was
repeatedly in physical proximity with the children during the
times that he stated the touchings occurred.” Id. ¶¶ 42–43 (cleaned
up). Accordingly, we determined that the juvenile court had not
erred by deeming the confessions trustworthy and by admitting
them into evidence. Id. ¶ 44.

B

¶29 With this legal background in mind, we now turn to an
examination of the circumstances presented here. As we did in In
re D.D., we begin with the Mauchley factors, and we then consider
whether the “overall facts and circumstances related in the
confession are consistent with facts otherwise known or
established.” Id. ¶¶ 33–43 (cleaned up). After considering the

20220103-CA 12 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

totality of the circumstances, we discern no error in the district
court’s decision to admit the confession.

¶30 In this case, two of the four Mauchley factors clearly weigh
in favor of admission of Jacobsen’s confession. First, an
examination of Jacobsen’s “positive physical and mental
condition, including age, education, and experience,” leaves us
with no reservations about Jacobsen’s capacity to understand the
situation. See id. ¶ 33 (cleaned up). As noted, at the time of the
confession, Jacobsen was a healthy, intelligent, forty-five-year-old
adult who had previous experience in the criminal justice system.
By contrast, the confessor in In re D.D. was a juvenile with mental
health issues, and we nevertheless found that this factor
“weigh[ed] in favor of corroborating [the] confessions.” Id. ¶ 41.
Indeed, Jacobsen does not appear to contest that this factor weighs
in favor of admission here. Accordingly, we conclude that this
factor clearly weighs in favor of admission.

¶31 Second, as in In re D.D., there is little indication of any
deception or trickery on the part of the individuals who elicited
the confession. See id. ¶ 38. In this case, the questioning was not
aggressive, and Agent did not misrepresent any facts to Jacobsen.
There is no indication that Agent made any promises or threats to
Jacobsen. And at the end of the interview, Jacobsen even affirmed
that he felt that he had been “treated fairly” and had the
“opportunity” to explain the events “in [his] own words.”

¶32 Jacobsen pushes back by pointing to two things: (1) Agent’s
statement, at the conclusion of the polygraph examination, that he
“kn[e]w that there was some type of sexual contact” between
Jacobsen and Mary; and (2) Detective’s request that Jacobsen write
a letter of apology to Mother. But we do not view Agent’s
statement about the polygraph results as deceptive or tricky,
because Agent’s statement appears to reflect his good-faith belief
that Jacobsen gave answers during that examination that
appeared to indicate untruthfulness; indeed, the results of the test
were later confirmed by Agent’s supervisor. At a minimum,

20220103-CA 13 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

Jacobsen points to no evidence that the test results were
inaccurate, or even that Agent was misrepresenting the results to
Jacobsen by making the statement. And Jacobsen’s argument that
Agent’s reference to the polygraph results was “deceptive”
because such results are inadmissible at trial is not a convincing
one, chiefly because Agent did not ever represent to Jacobsen that
the test results would be admissible. As for Detective’s request
that Jacobsen write an apology letter to Mother, we note simply
that this request was not made until after Jacobsen had already
confessed, so such a request has no bearing on the trustworthiness
of the confession itself.

¶33 Thus, we discern no deception or trickery on the part of
Agent or Detective, and we therefore conclude that the “deception
or trickery” factor weighs in favor of admission.

¶34 The other two Mauchley factors, however, are closer calls
on the facts of this case. Jacobsen did not have an attorney present
when the confession was given, and for this reason the district
court correctly concluded that the “presence-of-an-attorney”
factor must be weighed against admission. But we agree with the
court’s assessment that this factor should be weighed “only
slightly” against the State under the circumstances. Here, in an
effort to “try to clear [his] name,” Jacobsen chose to voluntarily
submit to a polygraph examination. He worked out a time and
date that was convenient for him, eventually arranging a date that
gave him several weeks to prepare for the examination. On the
day of the examination, he drove himself to the police station after
completing his workday and relaxing for an hour watching TV.
Once at the station, Jacobsen voluntarily signed a document
indicating that he was aware that he had the right to an attorney
and that he was willing to waive his Miranda rights, and he signed
another document indicating that he was aware that he had the
right to stop the test or to refuse to answer any particular question.
And given his previous experience with the criminal justice
system, Jacobsen can be expected to have had a fulsome
understanding of these documents; indeed, during his previous

20220103-CA 14 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

case, Jacobsen entered a guilty plea and, in the process,
specifically acknowledged that, as a defendant, he had an array of
applicable constitutional rights, including the right to be
represented by an attorney. While none of these things, either
individually or taken together, can adequately substitute for the
presence of counsel, we agree with the district court’s assessment
that they contribute toward mitigation of any concerns about
Jacobsen not having counsel present during the confession. We
therefore agree with the court’s conclusion that this factor should
weigh only slightly against admission of Jacobsen’s confession.

¶35 Finally, we consider the spontaneity of Jacobsen’s
confession. Here, where the confession was given in response to
police questioning but where Jacobsen freely volunteered the
relevant (and incriminating) details of the incident in question, the
confession is similar to the one analyzed in In re D.D. In that case,
we concluded that the confession met one definition of
“spontaneous” (it was “controlled and directed internally” by the
confessor and was “not apparently contrived or manipulated”)
but did not meet another (it did not “develop[] or occur[] without
apparent external influence”). Id. ¶¶ 35–36 (cleaned up). Under
those circumstances, we concluded that the “spontaneity” factor
“yield[ed] more nuanced results.” Id. ¶ 36.

¶36 We reach the same conclusion here. To be sure, Jacobsen’s
confession was the result of police questioning, and in that sense
it cannot be said to have been spontaneously offered. But in
another sense, Jacobsen’s confession—or, at least, the
incriminating details contained within it—can be viewed as
spontaneously offered because Jacobsen freely volunteered those
details in response to open-ended questions and without any
cajoling or suggestion from Agent. In particular, Jacobsen not only
admitted to inappropriate contact with Mary, but he volunteered
that the incident happened in a restroom at Lagoon while he was
helping Mary use the restroom. And in response to an open-
ended question from Agent (“Why did you do that?”), Jacobsen
stated that he had “[p]robably rationalize[d] it” by telling himself

20220103-CA 15 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

he was only helping Mary wipe after using the restroom, but that
he “probably most likely . . . just wanted to feel it.” Under these
circumstances, the spontaneity factor yields “nuanced results,” see
id., and does not weigh meaningfully in either direction.

¶37 Thus, two of the Mauchley factors rather clearly favor
admission, one weighs slightly against admission, and one does
not tip the scales significantly in either direction.

¶38 Next, we consider whether “the overall facts and
circumstances” that Jacobsen “related” in his confession are
“consistent with facts otherwise known or established.” See id.
¶ 42. In this case, it is undisputed that Mary spent significant time
at Jacobsen’s house and that Mary had developed a relationship
with Jacobsen and his family. Indeed, even after recanting his
confession, Jacobsen testified that he and his family had taken
Mary to Lagoon, and he even acknowledged that he had taken
Mary to the restroom at Lagoon. Therefore, unlike the Mauchley
hypothetical in which a man confesses to “fondl[ing] a child”
despite “evidence demonstrat[ing] he was never in physical
proximity with the child,” see 2003 UT 10, ¶ 53, 67 P.3d 477, the
facts here readily show that Jacobsen had the opportunity to
commit the precise crime to which he confessed.

¶39 Jacobsen, however, directs our attention to two facts that,
in his view, indicate that his confession is inconsistent with the
known or established facts of the case. First, Jacobsen points to the
CJC interview in which Mary did not repeat the allegations of
abuse that she had previously made to Mother. And second, he
reminds us that there is no evidence that he (as opposed to Mary)
ever had molluscum. But these facts are not necessarily
inconsistent with Jacobsen’s confession. With regard to the CJC
interview, Mary certainly didn’t recant the allegations she had
previously made. She just didn’t repeat them. The fact that a
three-year-old said nothing of value during an interview in a new
place with a stranger does little to render Jacobsen’s confession

20220103-CA 16 2025 UT App 73
State v. Jacobsen

inconsistent with known facts. 2 And as for the molluscum, that
rash was discovered on Mary several months after the confessed
abuse took place; the fact that Mary had molluscum in February
2020 but Jacobsen did not (and apparently never had) is not at all
inconsistent with the facts of the confessed abuse.

¶40 Thus, after considering the totality of the circumstances,
including the Mauchley factors and the facts Jacobsen urges us to
consider, we discern no error in the district court’s conclusion that
Jacobsen’s confession is sufficiently trustworthy to be admitted
into evidence in a trial in this case.

CONCLUSION

¶41 For all the foregoing reasons, the district court did not err
in deeming Jacobsen’s confession sufficiently trustworthy for
admission. Accordingly, we reject Jacobsen’s challenge to the
district court’s order and affirm his conviction.

2. The State points out that Jacobsen’s confession is entirely
consistent with Mother’s account that Mary told her that Jacobsen
abused her, and it asks us to consider that evidence in assessing
whether Jacobsen’s confession is consistent with other known
facts. We decline this invitation, however, both because the
question of whether an otherwise-inadmissible statement can be
considered when evaluating the trustworthiness of a confession
has not been decided in Utah, and because the other known facts
of the case are largely consistent with Jacobsen’s confession.

20220103-CA 17 2025 UT App 73