Utah Code » Title 76, Chapter 5 — Offenses Against the Individual; part 76-5-4 — Sexual Offenses
Utah Code

Utah Code § 76-5-407 (2026)

Consensual conduct in marriage

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The provisions of this part do not apply to consensual conduct between individuals married to each other.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: State v. Holm, 2006 UT 31 (Utah 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Holm, 2006 UT 31 (Utah 2006). · cites it 38× “¶ 82 Holm argues, however, that if the "purports to marry" prong of the bigamy statute is not unconstitutionally vague, then *748 the term "married," as used in section 76-5-407(1) of the Utah Code, which provides that sexual conduct with a minor is not unlawful if the…”
State v. Jacobs, 2006 UT App 356 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 26× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (2003). This section includes a list of three offenses for which “any touching, even if accomplished through clothing, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of the offense.”
State v. Pullman, 2013 UT App 168 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 17× “Constitutional Challenge to Section 76-5-407 $26 Pullman next contends that Utah Code section 76-5-407(8), which defines the types of touching necessary to satisfy the actus reus elements of several sexual offenses, is unconstitutional because it is "so broad as to include even…”
State v. Simmons, 759 P.2d 1152 (Utah 1988). · cites it 10× “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (Supp. 1987) provides in pertinent part: (2) In any prosecution for unlawful sexual intercourse, rape, or sodomy, any sexual penetration or, in the case of sodomy, any touching, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the offense.”
State v. Carrell, 2018 UT App 21 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “" Defendant also brings up the fact that during one account, First Victim mentioned that Defendant sometimes touched her while she was sitting on his lap.”
State v. Jones, 2018 UT App 110 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 18× “1 Defense counsel alleged that Utah Code section 76-5-407"only requires touching," rather than penetration, which meant that the conduct "merged" with "aggravated sexual abuse of a child.”
State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12 (Utah 2020). “§ 76-5-407(3). 7 STATE v. RAY Opinion of the Court it is considered to refer “to conduct of the same magnitude of gravity as that specifically described in the statute.”
State v. Ray, 2022 UT App 95 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “In 2019, our Legislature amended section 76-5-407 to add forcible sexual abuse to the list of offenses where touching over the clothing is enough, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (3)(e) (Supp. 2019), and has since moved the over-the-clothing provision to section 76-5-404 itself,…”
State v. Matsamas, 808 P.2d 1048 (Utah 1991). · cites it 4× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (2) (1990); see also State v.”
State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “§ 76-5-407(3) (Supp. 2019). The instructions Popp assails apprised the jury that the State bore the burden of proving, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that (1) Popp “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly committed a sexual act with F.”
State v. Tippets, 2021 UT App 137 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “(…continued) see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (3)(b) (LexisNexis 2017) (providing that, for sexual abuse of a child, “any touching, even if accomplished through clothing, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of the offense”).”
State v. Young, 780 P.2d 1233 (Utah 1989). · cites it 4× “Clearly, the evidence supports the forcible sodomy element of one of the aggravated sexual assault charges. This is because a touching of the anus, regardless of penetration, satisfies the “sexual act” requirement of .”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 76-5-407(1) — 1 case
State v. Holm, 2006 UT 31 (Utah 2006). “¶ 82 Holm argues, however, that if the "purports to marry" prong of the bigamy statute is not unconstitutionally vague, then *748 the term "married," as used in section 76-5-407(1) of the Utah Code, which provides that sexual conduct with a minor is not unlawful if the…”
— Utah Code § 76-5-407(2) — 4 cases
State v. Pullman, 2013 UT App 168 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “Constitutional Challenge to Section 76-5-407 $26 Pullman next contends that Utah Code section 76-5-407(8), which defines the types of touching necessary to satisfy the actus reus elements of several sexual offenses, is unconstitutional because it is "so broad as to include even…”
State v. Young, 780 P.2d 1233 (Utah 1989). “Clearly, the evidence supports the forcible sodomy element of one of the aggravated sexual assault charges. This is because a touching of the anus, regardless of penetration, satisfies the “sexual act” requirement of .”
State v. Simmons, 759 P.2d 1152 (Utah 1988). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (Supp. 1987) provides in pertinent part: (2) In any prosecution for unlawful sexual intercourse, rape, or sodomy, any sexual penetration or, in the case of sodomy, any touching, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the offense.”
State v. Gray, 2015 UT App 106 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
— Utah Code § 76-5-407(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Jacobs, 2006 UT App 356 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (2003). This section includes a list of three offenses for which “any touching, even if accomplished through clothing, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of the offense.”
State v. Jones, 2018 UT App 110 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “1 Defense counsel alleged that Utah Code section 76-5-407"only requires touching," rather than penetration, which meant that the conduct "merged" with "aggravated sexual abuse of a child.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-407(2)(b)(v) — 1 case
State v. Jones, 2018 UT App 110 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “1 Defense counsel alleged that Utah Code section 76-5-407"only requires touching," rather than penetration, which meant that the conduct "merged" with "aggravated sexual abuse of a child.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-407(3) — 9 cases
State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12 (Utah 2020). “§ 76-5-407(3). 7 STATE v. RAY Opinion of the Court it is considered to refer “to conduct of the same magnitude of gravity as that specifically described in the statute.”
State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “§ 76-5-407(3) (Supp. 2019). The instructions Popp assails apprised the jury that the State bore the burden of proving, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that (1) Popp “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly committed a sexual act with F.”
State v. Pullman, 2013 UT App 168 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “Constitutional Challenge to Section 76-5-407 $26 Pullman next contends that Utah Code section 76-5-407(8), which defines the types of touching necessary to satisfy the actus reus elements of several sexual offenses, is unconstitutional because it is "so broad as to include even…”
State v. Jacobs, 2006 UT App 356 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (2003). This section includes a list of three offenses for which “any touching, even if accomplished through clothing, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of the offense.”
State v. Tippets, 2021 UT App 137 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “(…continued) see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (3)(b) (LexisNexis 2017) (providing that, for sexual abuse of a child, “any touching, even if accomplished through clothing, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of the offense”).”
— Utah Code § 76-5-407(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Ray, 2022 UT App 95 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “In 2019, our Legislature amended section 76-5-407 to add forcible sexual abuse to the list of offenses where touching over the clothing is enough, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-407 (3)(e) (Supp. 2019), and has since moved the over-the-clothing provision to section 76-5-404 itself,…”
— Utah Code § 76-5-407(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Carrell, 2018 UT App 21 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “" Defendant also brings up the fact that during one account, First Victim mentioned that Defendant sometimes touched her while she was sitting on his lap.”
— Utah Code § 76-5-407(8) — 2 cases
State v. Pullman, 2013 UT App 168 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “Constitutional Challenge to Section 76-5-407 $26 Pullman next contends that Utah Code section 76-5-407(8), which defines the types of touching necessary to satisfy the actus reus elements of several sexual offenses, is unconstitutional because it is "so broad as to include even…”
State v. Pedersen, 2010 UT App 38 (Utah Ct. App. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.