screenshot 2025 08 22 165549

Defense asks judge to overturn child sex abuse conviction; ruling expected soon3 min read

By Tracie Sullivan, For Iron County Today

Attorneys for a Parowan man convicted of child sex abuse asked a judge Tuesday to throw out the jury’s verdict, saying his trial was riddled with constitutional errors and improper arguments.

On Aug. 19, defense attorney Sean Hullinger pressed 5th District Judge Meb Anderson to arrest judgment in the case of Dylan Christian Stubbs, 30, who was convicted in June of aggravated sexual abuse of a child.

Stubbs, who ran an in-home daycare with his wife, was found guilty of abusing a six-year-old girl in 2016 and 2017.

Hullinger told the judge the prosecution unfairly reshaped the case in closing arguments. He argued the defense had warned before trial that disputed witnesses and evidence would prejudice jurors.

“The posture of the case and the witnesses that we objected to were going to cause the very effects that they did indeed cause,” he said. “We believe those effects violate Mr. Stubbs’ rights under the U.S. and Utah constitutions… You cannot make up a crime during closing argument, judge.”

The defense further argued prosecutors improperly shifted theories in their closing argument by emphasizing Stubbs’ “special position of trust,” and said jurors deliberated too quickly to have fully considered the evidence.

Iron County Prosecutor Trajan Evans countered that the verdict was supported by both the evidence and the law.

“When the findings of all required elements of the crime can be reasonably made from the evidence… appellate courts will sustain the verdict,” he said, citing Utah Supreme Court precedent.

Evans rejected the claim that prosecutors introduced new theories at the last minute, pointing out that the charging documents had included the “special position of trust” language from the beginning.

“The argument by the state was that the defendant was an adult at a daycare facility… he lived in the home, he was married to the daycare owner, he was seen frequently at this home by the victim, and therefore, he was in a special position of authority,” Evans said. “Because of that position, he was able to exercise undue influence over the victim.”

As for the defense’s claim that the jury reached its verdict too quickly, Evans said courts have consistently upheld verdicts returned after only minutes of deliberation.

“There’s no rule that requires [jurors] to deliberate for any particular amount of time,” he argued.

Hullinger also asked the court to delay sentencing until Stubbs’ second case is resolved. Stubbs faces additional first-degree sodomy charges in an unrelated case.

Evans opposed the request, stressing the victim’s right to a timely resolution.

“We have a 14-year-old girl who deserves to have this case, or the defendant sentenced for sexually abusing her,” he said.

Hullinger, however, maintained sentencing should be delayed until Stubbs’ second pending case is resolved, warning that a pre-sentence interview could jeopardize his client’s Fifth Amendment rights.

“Mr. Stubbs is in a paradoxical position in that complying with the pre-sentence investigation fully would jeopardize his rights… with regards to the second case inasmuch as the state has chosen to interlace the two,” Hullinger said.

Anderson, who inherited the case after the original trial judge retired, said he would review portions of the trial — particularly closing arguments — before issuing a written ruling. He took both the motion and the sentencing schedule under advisement.

“I’ll try to get an order out by the end of the week that addresses all of these issues,” Anderson said. “The reality is if I were to find in Mr. Hullinger’s and Stubbs’ favor on the motion to arrest judgment, then sentencing would be moot anyway.”

This isn’t the first time Stubbs’ attorneys have advanced unusual legal arguments. Before trial, they filed a motion attacking Utah’s Rule 404(c), which allows prosecutors to use unproven allegations of child molestation to establish a pattern.

In that filing, the defense claimed such defendants were treated like a “protected class” under Jim Crow–era laws — a comparison prosecutors sharply criticized.

Share

Leave the first comment