State v. Alarid, 514 P.3d 610

Defendant Joseph Alarid was charged with multiple child‑sex offenses; Count IV alleged aggravated sexual abuse for touching his stepdaughter’s breasts (among other listed body parts) with intent to arouse.
Stepdaughter testified to multiple incidents of abuse over many years; Mother testified to a particular incident seeing Alarid touch Stepdaughter’s breast.
The jury deliberated, initially reported deadlock on several counts, then returned a guilty verdict on Count IV and, on the special verdict form, unanimously found that Alarid had touched Stepdaughter’s breasts.
The district court instructed the jury with Instruction 47 stating jurors "must also unanimously agree on the specific instance underlying each allegation or count," and provided a special verdict form listing body parts (including "breasts") with checkboxes.
During closing, the prosecutor argued (improperly) that one defense witness (Daughter) was a "co‑conspirator" and that Alarid had "told her what he wants her to say," despite Daughter’s testimony denying being told what to say; defense counsel did not object and had stipulated to the jury instructions.
Alarid moved for a new trial and then appealed, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) stipulating to jury instructions that allegedly failed to require unanimity as to a specific act and (2) failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct in closing; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for stipulating to jury instructions on unanimity	Alarid: Instructions failed to require juror unanimity as to a specific touching instance supporting Count IV; counsel should have objected	State/Court: Instruction 47 expressly required jurors to "unanimously agree on the specific instance underlying each allegation or count," and instructions read as a whole adequately conveyed unanimity	Held: No ineffective assistance — instructions properly conveyed unanimity; counsel's stipulation not deficient
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor's closing remarks about Daughter	Alarid: Prosecutor misstated evidence (calling Daughter a "co‑conspirator" and saying Alarid told her what to say), amounting to prosecutorial misconduct that counsel should have challenged	State/Court: Remarks were improper but constituted a small portion of the trial, contradicted or limited by testimony and jury instructions, and unlikely to have affected the verdict	Held: No ineffective assistance — although improper, the remarks were not prejudicial; no reasonable probability of different outcome

State v. Alires, 455 P.3d 636 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (discussing unanimity requirement and when jurors must agree on the same unlawful act)
State v. Saunders, 992 P.2d 951 (Utah 1999) (unanimity as to specific crime and each element required)
State v. Baugh, 504 P.3d 171 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (unanimity error where allegations not linked to counts)
State v. Lambdin, 424 P.3d 117 (Utah 2017) (instructions must be read as a whole and fairly instruct the jury)
State v. Hutchings, 285 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2012) (jurors use commonsense; courts presume juries follow instructions)
State v. Powell, 154 P.3d 788 (Utah 2007) (prosecutor has wide latitude in argument but not to introduce matters outside the evidence)
State v. Todd, 173 P.3d 170 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (prosecutor may not "strike foul" blows; limits on closing argument)