Burke v. State, 342 P.3d 299

Burke was convicted by a jury of aggravated abuse of a child, forcible sexual abuse, and dealing in material harmful to a minor; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
At trial, evidence showed Burke stayed at an acquaintance’s house overnight, ordered several pornographic on-demand movies (timestamps: 1:30, 3:00, 3:30, 8:20 a.m.), and Child testified Burke forced her to touch his penis while a pornographic movie played; Child’s pretrial interview mentioned a scene where a ball dropped on a man’s head.
Defense focused on undermining Child’s credibility (cross-examination and a child-psychologist expert on memory contamination); counsel argued timing evidence limited when the abuse could have occurred.
Post-conviction, Burke alleged ineffective assistance: trial counsel failed to investigate an alibi tied to checks Burke cashed at a grocery store (first check time-stamped 9:18 a.m.) and a traffic engineer opined Burke could not have reached the store in time if the contested movie scene first played at 8:54 a.m.
The district court granted PCRA relief, finding counsel was deficient for not investigating the potential alibi, and ordered a new trial; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Burke)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate a potential alibi	Counsel failed to investigate the grocery-store timestamps and travel time; had counsel done so an alibi showing Burke could not have been present for the alleged scene would have been available	Counsel reasonably declined further investigation because the alleged alibi would at best cover only a small portion of the relevant time window and pursuing it risked admitting highly prejudicial forgery evidence	Reversed district court: counsel’s decision not to further investigate was objectively reasonable and not deficient

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Lenkart, 262 P.3d 1 (Utah 2011) (counsel must make adequate inquiry into facts and evidence before deciding how to proceed)
Montoya v. State, 84 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2004) (recognizes counsel’s discretion to limit investigations as part of reasonable strategy)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (counsels’ tactical choices are given deference; inquiry focuses on objective reasonableness)
Lafferty v. State, 175 P.3d 530 (Utah 2007) (cites standard for showing counsel’s performance fell below objective standard)