Revere Burnett

Sources

1. 2018 UT App 80THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS State v. Burnett, Justia , May 3, 2018.
2. STATE OF UTAH vs. REVERE BURNETT CASE NUMBER 131902499 State Felony, Xchange Utah Court, March 14, 2013.
3. STATE OF UTAH vs. REVERE BURNETT CASE NUMBER 111905901 State Felony, Xchange Utah Court, May 29, 2026.

• 1. 2018 UT App 80THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS State v. Burnett

  • 20180503
  • News article
  • Justia

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  2018UT App 80THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALSSTATE OF UTAH,Appellee,v.REVERE BURNETT,Appellant.OpinionNo. 20150684-CAFiled May 3, 2018ThirdDistrict Court, Salt LakeDepartmentThe Honorable Vernice S. TreaseNo. 111905901Lori J. Seppi, Attorney forAppellantSean D. Reyes and William M. Hains, AttorneysforAppelleeJUDGERYAN M.HARRIS authored thisOpinion, in which JUDGESGREGORY K.ORMEandMICHELE M.CHRISTIANSENconcurred.HARRIS, Judge:¶1A jury convicted Revere Burnett of six criminal charges, including rape and aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Burnett contends on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial, because his attorney failed to object to the testimony of the State’s expert psychiatrist. After review, we conclude that much of the expert’s testimony was proper, and that objection to most of it would therefore have been futile. However, we agree in part with Burnett’s arguments, and conclude that his trial counsel was indeed ineffective for failing to object to that part of the expert’s testimony in which the expert inappropriately bolstered the victim’s credibility. Accordingly, we reverse Burnett’s convictions and remand the case for a new trial.
  State v. Burnett20150684-CA22018 UT App 80BACKGROUND1¶2In 2010, after sixteen years of marriage, Burnett and his wife (Mother) divorced, and Mother was awarded sole legal custody of their three teenage children: Victim, her sister (Sister), and her brother(Brother). The divorce decree granted Burnett parent-time with all three children. In May 2011, less than a year after the divorce, Burnett raised the possibility of increasing the quantity of his parent-time with the children. Within days of Burnett broaching that subject, then-fifteen-year-old Victim disclosed to Mother that Burnett had sexually abusedand rapedher for many years. ¶3After investigating the matter, the State charged Burnett with committing various crimes upon Victim, includingfive counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, first degree felonies, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404.1(4) (LexisNexis 2017); two counts of rape of a child, first degree felonies, see id.§ 76-5-402.1; and two counts of sodomy upon a child, first degree felonies, see id.§ 76-5-403.1.2¶4At trial, Victim testifiedthat Burnett first started abusing her when she was “about three or four years old” and that the 1.“On appeal from a jury verdict, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to that verdict and recite the facts accordingly.” State v. Dozah, 2016 UT App 13, ¶2, 368 P.3d 863. 2.The State later amended its information against Burnett, adding four additional counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child based on additional allegations that Burnett had also abused Sister and Brother. The jury acquitted Burnett of those charges. Those charges and acquittals are not at issue in this appeal.
  State v. Burnett20150684-CA32018 UT App 80abuse continued until she was “[a]bout 11.” She did not “remember every single incident,” but could recall severalincidents with specificity. Victim described Burnett digitally penetrating her vagina and anus. She further described Burnett forcing her to manually and orally stimulate him. And she also testifiedthat Burnett raped her on more than one occasion, both vaginallyand anally. ¶5Victim testified that, during the years Burnett abused her, she often felt physically ill, even when the abuse was not actually happening. She experienced headaches, nausea, upset stomach, occasional vomiting, and memory loss.These symptoms progressed over time, and Victim laterexperiencedfainting, pseudo-seizures, hallucinations, and age regression.Eventually, Victim was diagnosed with conversion disorder,a condition “where a person takes psychological distress and expresses it in physical symptoms or ways.” Victim started cutting herself when she was thirteen,and she also experienced suicidal ideations that continued throughout the time of trial. ¶6When askedif she had told anyone about the abuse while it was ongoing,Victim stated that she had not.She explained that she “didn’t know any different,” and that she did not initially tell anyone about the abuse because she was “scared.”She stated that Burnett told her that bad things would happen to her family if she disclosed the abuse,and that she “wasn’t supposed to tell anyone, that it was normal.” Eventually, Victim told Mother, as well as Victim’s psychologist,that Burnett had sexually abused her.¶7The State called Dr. David Corwin (Expert) as an expert witness at trial.3Expert is a psychiatrist, and is the director of 3.Prior to trial, Burnett lodged an objection to Expert’s testimony, asserting that “[h]is testimony is not relevant to this (continued...)
  State v. Burnett20150684-CA42018 UT App 80forensic services for the pediatrics department at the University of Utah, and is board certified in psychiatry, child psychiatry, and forensic psychiatry. He described his practice as focused on workingwith individuals who had been sexually abused as children, and described for the jury several publications he had authored on child sexual abuse, as well as several awards he had received for his work withvictims of child sexual abuse.¶8Expert readily acknowledged that he had not treated, interviewed, or examined Victim, and that he was not offering any opinion about whether Victim had actually been abused. Instead, the State explored two main subjects with Expert. First, the State asked Expert about how he, as a trained expert, endeavors to tell the difference between cases in which the victim is advancing truthful claims of sexual abuse, and cases in which the abuse allegations are fabricated. Second, the State asked Expert whether, in his experience, hewas aware of certain signs or symptoms that might alert him that a particular child may have been sexually abused. (...continued)case, specifically that some persons who have conversion disorder have been sexually abused.” Burnett asked the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the State’s experts, including Expert, should be permitted to testify, and the trial court scheduled that hearing for March 5, 2014. Prior to the hearing, the State filed a written response to Burnett’s objection, citing State v. Kallin, 877 P.2d 138, 141 (Utah 1994), and stating that Expert would simply testify that certain symptoms were “consistent with” sexual abuse. At the March 5 hearing, however, no one even mentioned Expert, and Burnett appears to have at some point abandoned his relevance objection to Expert’s testimony. In any event, Burnett does not argue on appealthat he ever renewed that objection, or that he made any other objection, to Expert’s testimony.
  State v. Burnett20150684-CA52018 UT App 80¶9With regard to the first subject, Expert began by testifying that it is “most common”for abuse victims to delay disclosure of the abuse,and offered many reasonsfor this phenomenon. For example, a child might not know that he or she should disclose instances of sexual abuse;a child might feel loyal to the abuser or feel affection for the abuser;or the abuser might warn or threaten the child. He testified that disclosure is more common in adolescents than in children because adolescents “are beginning to psychologically separate themselves from their parents, and they can begin to conceive of surviving apart from their parents.”4In contrast, “[v]ery young children are really onewith their parents and totally dependent upon their parents.”Significantly, he stated that divorce, and its attendant changing family dynamics, is one event that can “release[]” children from their previous reluctance to disclose, although he acknowledged that there existsa “small percentage” of cases in which children from divorced families “fabricat[e]” abuse allegations.He stated that those are “the most difficult cases of all,” and that it is part of his professional dutiesto “try to figure out which” instancesare the ones that involve fabricated allegations.¶10Indeed, during re-direct examination, the State asked Expert what he looks for in “making those evaluations” in cases “where there is a custody dispute and there are allegations of child sexual abuse.” In response, the following colloquy occurred between the prosecutor and Expert:A.I look at a lot of things, because those are the most difficult cases that a forensic expert like myself is asked to look at. And that’s because 4.Expert’s testimony about delayed disclosure being common is entirely proper, see State v. Wright, 2013 UT App 142, ¶35, 304 P.3d 887; State v. Bair, 2012 UT App 106, ¶47, 275 P.3d 1050, and Burnett makes no argument to the contrary.
  State v. Burnett20150684-CA62018 UT App 80the rate of both disclosure ofactual sexual abuse goes up when a family breaks up, because the dynamics that keep it secret are gone, but also the possibility of a misperception, either by a child or more commonly an adult attributing it to a child . . . .[I]n a small percentage of casesthere are either children who have lied or parents who somehow get their kids to say things that are false. And even though that’s a very small percentage in most studies of this topic, it’s very troubling, because sexual abuse is such a serious thing. . . .Q. Now, in—you said that that’s a small percentage of these cases. In those cases are the children typically younger?A.Yes. Yeah, the hardest cases are the three-, four-[or]five-year-olds.Q.So . . . to clarify, in these cases where there is an allegation like a child sexual abuse that’s false, it would involve children that are younger on the—A. Well, in terms of the divorce custody and the possibility of influence, it’s easier to do that with a very young child, because they are more susceptible to being misled, in terms of interviewing or what adults say to them. In older kids, they are more capable of making outright false allegations, to actually make something up. And in the studies that have been done, those are usually kids with an ax to grind. They are trying to influence where they
  State v. Burnett20150684-CA72018 UT App 80are living. And they usually allege garden-variety sexual intercourse, vaginal intercourse.Q. So what do you mean by garden variety?A. Really simple,straightforward, as opposed to more strange, more elaborated, more detailed accounts.Q. So, for example, just a disclosure that he touched my private part, without any more details, or he put his penis in my vagina, without any additional details?A. Well, that would be sort of vaginal intercourse, put his penis in my vagina. The touching—you know, when the allegations are less severe, when I am trying to look at these various hypotheses, in my mind I think, well, if this is a false allegation why not go ahead and make a, you know, full-blown, culpable sort of clear description than something that’s a little hard[er] and less easy to interpret. Q. So [Defense counsel]asked you about false allegations of child sexual abuse. Based on your training and your experience and your knowledge of the literature inyour field, are those common or are they rare?A. I have to be a little more specific in terms of false by the parent, false by the child. I think the general experience is that false allegations initiated by the children are less common than actual allegations, . . . but they do occur.¶11With regard to the second subject, the State asked Expert whether and to what extent warning sign sexist that alert a
  State v. Burnett20150684-CA82018 UT App 80medical professional to the possibility of sexual abuse. Expert testified that there are a “variety” of “symptoms” and “disorders” that are “more common among sexually abused and traumatized children than among other children,” including “dissociation” (the ability “to compartmentalize and keep these very difficult experiences apart from the rest of one’s awareness”), increased anxiety, sleep problems, nightmares,depression, self-mutilation,hallucinations, panic disorders, and suicidal behavior.¶12Expert also testified about “conversion disorder,” and explained that there are a “continuum of symptoms”common in patients suffering from conversion disorder,including “pseudo-seizures,”and specifically noted that “pseudo-seizures” are “one of the most highly correlated among the conversion symptoms” with sexual abuse. Expert conceded that the symptoms of conversion disorder are “not exclusive” to sexual abuse victims, but when asked whether “a diagnosis of conversion disorder” is “consistent with sexual abuse,” Expert responded as follows:It would—it’s consistent with it, and in my view I think consistent with is a pretty low bar, because a lot of things are consistent with things. But it’s an indicator, it’s not definitive, it doesn’t in and of itself prove things like sexual abuse, again because it’s correlated with other stressors and traumas as well. Um, but it’s—it’s—it’s an indicator.¶13The State asked Expert a hypothetical question: “If you had a patient that had been diagnosed with conversion disorder, was manifesting symptoms such as depression, anxiety, hallucination, self-mutilation and suicidal ideations, would you be concerned about sexual abuse?” Expert answered, “Yes, very concerned, . . . [b]ecause all of the things you have listed are known . . . to exist at increased frequency among victims of child sexual abuse.”
  State v. Burnett20150684-CA92018 UT App 80¶14Burnett testified in his own defense at trial, and generally denied all of the allegations against him, the thrust of the defense strategy being that Victim manufactured the allegations against him in an effort to influence the then-pending custody dispute with Mother.Burnett explained that he and Mother divorced in 2010.He stated that Mother and Mother’s sister drafted the divorce decree, to which Burnett stipulated, and that Mother“had full legal custody” of Victim.Burnett described Mother taking Victim to various doctors and medical professionals“at least 30 times” in 2010 and 2011and between twenty and thirty times in 2012,and that Mother did not inform him what the visits were about.Burnett stated that Mother waited until the end of each year before informing him about the medical bills, which were “in the thousands of dollars.” Describing Victim’s doctor visits, Burnett testified:[T]hey would see her, they would do tests. There would be nothing wrong with her, and so they would say, well “If such and such happens bring her back and we’ll look at her again.” And sure enough, she’s back in in a couple of days with “X” symptom that they. . .suggested. Burnett stated that Victim “would follow through with whatever [Mother] wanted” and that he “never saw” any of Victim’s symptoms. ¶15Under the terms of the divorce decree, Burnett was not permitted to be involved in Victim’s doctor visits. After consulting with a divorce attorney, Burnett decided that he wanted to amend the decree,and arranged to meet with Mother to discuss amendment on May 11, 2011.5Burnett received a 5.Mother also testified at trial. She explain ed that she sought a protective order against Burnett based on Victim’s allegations. (continued...)
  State v. Burnett20150684-CA102018 UT App 80phone call that same day from a detective explaining that Victim had leveled sexual abuse allegations against him.¶16During closing argument, Burnett’s counsel highlighted the timing of Victim’s disclosures, and argued that the case boiled down to an assessment of Victim’s credibility. Counsel specifically argued that the allegations against Burnett were “outright falsehoods,” and that Victim’s allegations were fabricated in an effort to prevent Burnett from modifying the divorce decree.¶17In its rebuttal argument at closing, the State also focused on Victim’s veracity. The prosecutor argued that Expert’s testimony “corroborates” Victim’s testimony, stating that Victim had “no ax to grind” and could therefore be considered truthful. The prosecutor emphasized Victim’s conversion disorder diagnosis and pseudo-seizures, and specifically reminded the jury that Expert “told you that [conversion disorder and pseudo-seizures are] consistent with the trauma of being sexually abused.” The prosecutor also referenced Expert’s testimony about how one can separate a truthful accuser from a lying one, and stated as follows:Dr. Corwin also said that—[c]ounsel talked about, you know, false allegations in child custody cases. And he also—he said that . . . specific and unusual disclosures were more reliable. In other words, disclosures where there is simply, oh, he touched my private part, that in the rare cases when there are false allegations, that’s what you have. You (...continued)Although Mother equivocated somewhat, she agreed that Victim’s allegations, as outlined in the protective order request, surfaced around the time of the May 11, 2011 meeting.

• 2. STATE OF UTAH vs. REVERE BURNETT CASE NUMBER 131902499 State Felony

  • 20130314
  • News article
  • Xchange Utah Court

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT - SALT LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
  SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
  STATE OF UTAH vs. REVERE BURNETT
  CASE NUMBER 131902499 State Felony

  CHARGES

  Charge 1 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 09, 2002
  Location: 6188 WEST SETTLER POINT DR
  Disposition: February 07, 2018 Dismissed (w/o prej)

  Charge 2 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 09, 2002
  Location: 6188 WEST SETTLER POINT DR
  Disposition: February 07, 2018 Dismissed (w/o prej)

  Charge 3 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 09, 2002
  Location: 6188 WEST SETTLER POINT DR
  Disposition: February 07, 2018 Dismissed (w/o prej)

  Charge 4 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 09, 2002
  Location: 6188 WEST SETTLER POINT DR
  Disposition: February 07, 2018 Dismissed (w/o prej)

  02-07-2018 Charge 1 Disposition is Dismissed (w/o
  02-07-2018 Charge 2 Disposition is Dismissed (w/o
  02-07-2018 Charge 3 Disposition is Dismissed (w/o
  02-07-2018 Charge 4 Disposition is Dismissed (w/o
  06-04-2024 Filed: Expungement Petition: Petition to Expunge Records
  06-04-2024 Fee Account created Total Due: 150.00
  06-04-2024 EXPUNGEMENT PETN Payment Received: 150.00
  06-04-2024 Filed: Return of Electronic Notification
  06-11-2024 Filed: Expungement Certificate
  07-01-2024 Filed: Motion States Objection to Defendants Petition to Expunge

• 3. STATE OF UTAH vs. REVERE BURNETT CASE NUMBER 111905901 State Felony

  • News article
  • Xchange Utah Court

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT - SALT LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
  SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
  APPEALED: CASE # 20150684
  STATE OF UTAH vs. REVERE BURNETT
  CASE NUMBER 111905901 State Felony

  CHARGES
  This case involves domestic violence.

  Charge 1 - 76-9-702.1 - SEXUAL BATTERY - Class A Misdemeanor
  Offense Date: January 01, 2000
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Attributes: Domestic Violence.
  Plea: April 15, 2019 Guilty
  Disposition: April 15, 2019 Guilty

  Charge 2 - 76-9-702.1 - SEXUAL BATTERY - Class A Misdemeanor
  Offense Date: January 01, 2000
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Attributes: Domestic Violence.
  Plea: April 15, 2019 Guilty
  Disposition: April 15, 2019 Guilty

  Charge 3 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st DegreeFelony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2000
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: December 09, 2011 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 4 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st DegreeFelony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2000
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: December 09, 2011 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 5 - 76-5-402.1 - RAPE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2000
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: December 09, 2011 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 6 - 76-5-402.1 - RAPE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2004
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: December 09, 2011 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 7 - 76-5-403.1 - SODOMY ON A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2004
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  05-11-2026 06:27 PM Page 1 of 40
  Plea: December 09, 2011 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 8 - 76-5-403.1 - SODOMY ON A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2004
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: December 09, 2011 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 9 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony (amended to) - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2004
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: December 09, 2011 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 10 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony (amended to) - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2004
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: June 11, 2015 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 11 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony (amended to) - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2004
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: June 11, 2015 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 12 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony (amended to) - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2004
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: June 11, 2015 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  Charge 13 - 76-5-404.1(4) - AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD - 1st Degree Felony (amended to) - 1st Degree Felony
  Offense Date: January 01, 2004
  Location: 6188 W SETTLER POINT
  Plea: June 11, 2015 Not Guilty
  Disposition: June 11, 2015 Dismissed w/ Prejudi

  SENTENCE PRISON

  Based on the defendant's conviction of AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD a 1st Degree Felony, the defendant is sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than five years and which may be life in the Utah State Prison.

  Based on the defendant's conviction of AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD a 1st Degree Felony, the defendant is sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than five years and which may be life in the Utah State Prison.

  Based on the defendant's conviction of RAPE OF A CHILD a1st Degree Felony, the defendant is sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than fifteen years and which may be life in the Utah State Prison.

  Based on the defendant's conviction of RAPE OF A CHILD a1st Degree Felony, the defendant is sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than fifteen years and which may be life in the Utah State Prison.

  Based on the defendant's conviction of SODOMY ON A CHILD a1st Degree Felony, the defendant is sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than fifteen years and which may be life in the Utah State Prison.

  Based on the defendant's conviction of AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD a 1st Degree Felony, the defendant is sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than five years and which may be life in the Utah State Prison.

  To the SALT LAKE County Sheriff: The defendant is remanded to your custody for transportation to the Utah State Prison where the defendant will be confined.

  SENTENCE PRISON CONCURRENT/CONSECUTIVE NOTE
  The Court orders the sentences on the 2 rape of a child charges to run consecutive to one another and concurrent to all of the other counts.

  SENTENCE RECOMMENDATION NOTE
  The Court makes a record that the defendant has served 48days in jail. The defendant is ordered to pay restitution for any further counseling of the victims.

  CUSTODY
  The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Salt Lake County Jail