By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
A Nephi teacher charged with molesting his daughter's 11-year-old friend and a former student of his was found not guilty in a jury trial Thursday.
A three-woman, five man jury found Hadley Christensen, 39, not guilty following a four-day trial and jury deliberations that lasted a little more than two hours from the time the jury was sent to deliberate.
The jury returned a not guilty verdict around 6:30 p.m. Thursday in Fourth District court in Nephi.
"The verdict of the jury is to be based solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom," said Fourth District Senior Judge William Barrett.
Barrett began afternoon proceedings on the fourth day by instructing jurors on their responsibilities.
He also stated that, as judge, he hoped he had not done anything which made any juror think he favored one side or the other and asked them to consider only the evidence in making a decision.
David Sturgill, Utah County Deputy Attorney, served as prosecuting attorney in the trial. He took the case because Jared Eldridge and his office were "conflicted out" because of the relationship the office had with Bob Day, the retired buildings and grounds supervisor for the county, because his daughter is the wife of Christensen.
Phil Ivie and Dallas Young, Provo attorneys, served as defense attorneys representing Christensen.
Neither the prosecution nor the defense vilified the child witness nor her story, but Ivie said that throughout his testimony, Christensen had maintained his innocence.
He said that Christensen was a teacher and a wrestling coach who had chosen to work with children and had worked in Juab School District for 11 years.
"This is a person who has lived an exemplary life," said Ivie. "He has been around kids his whole life."
Christensen, said Ivie, admitted that he went downstairs the night of the sleepover to where the girls were sleeping, twice. One of those times he put another blanket over the girl witness so that she would not be cold and one time he moved the elf on the shelf.
"He certainly deserves a reasonable doubt," Ivie said.
"The prosecution does not have to provide proof that overcomes every possible doubt," said Sturgill.
He said her testimony revealed that the young girl had already suffered harassment.
By coming forward, said Sturgill, the girl had lost friends and had to change schools. There was no question that she had loved the Christensens, he said. Their home had been her happy place.
"She had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by coming forward," he said. "Why would she destroy her happy place?"
He said that her testimony had remained consistent throughout the span of time that had lapsed, 19 months, and that she had understood the impact.
"If I told you 'A' today and the second time I told you I added 'B', that would not be inconsistent. If I told you 'A' and the second time I did not tell you 'A,' that would be inconsistent," he said.
"Only rely on what came from the witness stand not to the witness stand," said Sturgill.
Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in the adversarial legal system.
The prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty.
"There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty," said Sturgill.
One piece of evidence was not in dispute, he said. That was the date, December 22, 2012. The other was the scene which was the home of Christensen where the 11-year-old child witness had been invited to stay overnight.
The young woman, her parents, law enforcement, medical and physiological experts, Christensen and his wife took the stand as the trial advanced.
Journalists covering sexual abuse trials, whether or not the person charged with the abuse is found guilty, keep juveniles names private under a law which protects children. In order to provide that protection, the child witnesses' parents are also kept private.
There were several points of conflict which Sturgill and Ivie discussed with jurors in summation. One of those was the fact that the eyes of the 11-year-old remained closed during the alleged encounter.
Sturgill said that the child kept her eyes closed, which, according to one of the expert witnesses, was not uncommon in one so young because of fear and disbelief.
"She freezes, she is scared, she fakes sleep," said Sturgill.
It was the contention of Ivie that the child witness had a nightmare.
She had been through the RAD Kid program and had also completed a maturation class. He proposed that those combined in her mind to create a bad dream.
As for a pill being given to the young girl for a headache by Christensen, said Ivie, tests found no residue of anything but caffeine and chocolate.
The girl claimed Hadley gave her a strange pill for a headache and that she awoke to find him touching her inappropriately during the night.
Doctors at Primary Children's Hospital said they discovered "physical evidence that could have been caused by the abuse as she described it to them," court records state.
However, Ivie said they also said that the evidence could have been caused by other factors.
Barrett, in instructing the jury, said that touch, "however slight," was still to be considered inappropriate.
Jurors fulfill a very important function in the legal system, said Barrett. In a criminal trial, they are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether, on the facts of the case, a person is guilty or not guilty of the offense for which he/she has been charged.
The charge that Christensen faced of aggravated sexual abuse of a child is a first degree felony.
Dr. Rick Robins said that in January of 2013 Christensen, who taught fifth grade at Red Cliffs Elementary School, had been suspended from his job pending the outcome of the investigation.
