353 P.3d 623
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2001 San Juan was charged with DUI (class B misdemeanor) and speeding; he failed to appear and a warrant issued; about 12 years later he appeared and was tried by jury.
- The prosecution called a single witness: a Salt Lake City police officer trained in field sobriety testing and as a drug recognition expert.
- Officer stopped a vehicle for speeding, identified San Juan as the driver, smelled strong alcohol, observed red/glossy eyes, reported belligerent behavior, a refusal to submit to a blood test, and an admission that San Juan had consumed wine.
- Officer administered field sobriety tests which San Juan failed; the officer testified that based on the tests and clues San Juan was not safe to drive.
- San Juan was convicted of both counts and appealed only the DUI conviction, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to request expert-witness notice | City: counsel complied with general witness-list and discovery requests; no specific expert notice required in misdemeanors | San Juan: counsel should have requested formal expert notice | Court: No deficient performance shown or prejudice; San Juan failed to explain what additional notice would have yielded |
| Failure to object to officer testifying as an expert | City: omission may be trial strategy; officer likely would qualify as expert | San Juan: counsel should have objected to expert testimony absent qualification | Court: Strong presumption of reasonable strategy; record doesn’t show officer would be unqualified or that prejudice resulted |
| Failure to object to officer’s opinion that defendant was unsafe to drive (Rule 704(b) issue) | City: officer’s observations admissible; misdemeanor context and officer-employee exception apply | San Juan: the opinion invaded the jury’s determination of mental state/condition and was inadmissible | Court: Even assuming deficient performance for not objecting, San Juan fails to show prejudice; excluding the officer’s conclusion would not likely change outcome |
| Failure to call a defense expert | City: prosecution evidence sufficed; no showing of what expert would say | San Juan: counsel should have retained an expert to rebut impairment opinion | Court: San Juan did not identify an expert or proposed testimony; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Stipulation to identity as driver | City: identity was presented to jury and not stipulated by defense | San Juan: counsel allegedly stipulated to identity, waiving an element | Court: Record shows counsel did not stipulate; identity was submitted to jury and proven beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-part test)
- State v. Geukgeuzian, 86 P.3d 742 (reciting facts in light most favorable to jury verdict)
- Fernandez v. Cook, 870 P.2d 870 (addressing standards for proving ineffective assistance)
- State v. Gunter, 304 P.3d 866 (defendant must identify expert testimony and prejudice to show failure to call expert)