an evidentiary basis for the jury’s adoption of one inference over the other. See Carrera, 2015 UT 73, ¶ 12, 358 P.3d 1067, And because the jury’s adoption rested on an evidentiary basis, we conclude that the jury made a reasonable inference rather than an impermissible speculation. ¶20 Affirmed. 1 . A separate statute criminalizes object rape of a person younger than 14. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-402.3 (LexisNexis Supp. 2016). 2 . We recognize that testifying about a sexual assault is traumatic for the victim. But the State has the burden of “proving by evidence every essential element” of the charged crime. See Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 266, 109 S.Ct. 2419, 105 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989) (per curiam); see also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (<HOLDING>). We urge prosecutors to adduce specific
holding that no person shall suffer the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficient proof  defined as evidence necessary to convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the offense holding state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and a scheme that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming a fact upon proof of the other elements of the offense violates due process holding that conviction of a crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime holding that even when a jury instruction is defective such a defect is cured when the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the due process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged