N.A.D. v. State, 338 P.3d 226

14-year-old N.A.D. was charged in juvenile court with rape of a child and threatening the life of a child based on an incident involving a 7‑year‑old victim, K.W.; he was adjudicated delinquent.
Before trial, N.A.D. gave a confession; he moved to suppress that confession and the juvenile judge granted the motion.
The same judge who heard and granted the suppression motion then presided over the subsequent bench trial.
N.A.D. argued on appeal that the judge’s prior exposure to his confession required recusal and raised related ineffective‑assistance claims based on trial counsel’s failure to request recusal.
He also argued ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to call an expert about the effects of his medication, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication.
The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court on all grounds.

Issue	N.A.D.'s Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether judge’s prior suppression hearing required recusal (plain error)	Judge was biased because she heard his confession at suppression and should not have presided at bench trial	No settled law required recusal; judges presumed to disregard inadmissible evidence in bench trials	No plain error; no recusal required
Ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to seek recusal	Counsel deficient for not asking judge to recuse; prejudice from exposure to confession	No established law supported recusal request; objecting would have been futile	Claim fails — counsel not deficient under governing law
Ineffective assistance for not calling medication expert	An expert could have explained sedation effects and supported defense	Counsel did consult mental‑health resources; record lacks proof what an expert would have testified to or which medication was involved	Claim fails — no demonstrated prejudice or proof expert testimony would help
Sufficiency of evidence for delinquency adjudication	Testimony of defense witnesses and medication evidence undermined victim’s account	Court credited victim’s testimony and found defense witnesses less credible; no proof defendant was asleep or on medication at the time	Affirmed — findings not against clear weight of evidence

State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain‑error framework)
State v. Maestas, 299 P.3d 892 (Utah 2012) (clarifies what makes an error obvious)
State v. Griffin, 754 P.2d 965 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (preservation of suppression rulings when same judge presides)
State v. Adams, 257 P.3d 470 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (presumption that bench judges disregard inadmissible evidence)
State v. Burke, 129 P.2d 560 (Utah 1942) (judge presumed to disregard irrelevant evidence in bench trials)
State v. Hales, 152 P.3d 321 (Utah 2007) (ineffective assistance where counsel failed adequate expert investigation)
State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah 2000) (Strickland standard applied in Utah)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test)