State v. Allgood, 400 P.3d 1088

Background

Allgood was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, forcible sodomy, two counts of rape, and three counts of forcible sexual abuse for repeated sexual abuse of his stepdaughter from about ages 8–17.
The abuse was largely concealed as "tucking her into bed;" family members later observed suspicious behavior (long tuck-in times, locked bedroom door, cuddling, jealousy over Victim’s boyfriend).
Victim eventually disclosed to friends and then to her mother, who reported the abuse after Victim attempted to run away and showed a contemporaneous instant message from Allgood.
The detective photographed the instant message but inadvertently deleted the photos before trial; witnesses (Victim, Mother, detective, Allgood) gave differing recollections of the message’s wording.
At trial, the State elicited testimony from Victim and Mother describing the message as sexually suggestive; defense counsel agreed pretrial not to ask Victim about her sexual activity with her boyfriend in exchange for the State’s promise not to argue Victim became sexually active because of the abuse.
Allgood appealed, raising unpreserved claims: (1) the State knowingly elicited false testimony about the message; (2) counsel was ineffective for the pretrial agreement regarding Victim’s relationship; and (3) counsel was ineffective for failing to object to alleged hearsay (Mother’s recounting of a police officer’s phone remarks).

Issues

Issue	Allgood’s Argument	State’s/Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether the State knowingly elicited false testimony about Allgood’s instant message	The jury heard false testimony (Victim said message meant “he wanted to have sex with me”); prosecutor failed to correct it, warranting reversal	The prosecutor asked about the message’s subject, not exact wording; with the deleted photo there was no proof testimony was false	No plain error or prosecutorial misconduct; testimony described subjectively and was admissible; convictions stand
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for agreeing not to question Victim about her sexual relationship with her boyfriend	The agreement prevented meaningful cross-examination and rebuttal of the State’s jealousy theme, depriving Allgood of a complete defense	Counsel could reasonably avoid exploring the sexual relationship because it might have bolstered the State; the agreement also gained the concession that State would not argue abuse caused Victim’s sexual activity	No ineffective assistance: counsel’s choice had a plausible tactical basis and Allgood failed to show prejudice
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Mother relaying what a police officer told her (alleged hearsay)	Allowing Mother to recount the officer’s concerns reinforced State’s case through inadmissible hearsay; silence by counsel was negligent	Counsel may have declined to object to avoid having the officer testify and provide more damaging firsthand detail; failing to object had a strategic rationale	No ineffective assistance: reasonable tactical basis and Allgood did not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome

Key Cases Cited

State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (standard for reviewing facts in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Dean, 95 P.3d 276 (Utah 2004) (plain error test elements)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance standard)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (prejudice prong—reasonable probability standard)
Mulder v. State, 385 P.3d 708 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (prosecutor’s duty to correct known false testimony)
State v. Basta, 966 P.2d 260 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (prosecutorial misconduct reversal standard)
State v. Clark, 89 P.3d 162 (Utah 2004) (presumption of reasonable counsel and requirement to show no conceivable tactical basis)
Fernandez v. Cook, 870 P.2d 870 (Utah 1993) (prejudice analysis under ineffective-assistance claims)