546 P.3d 356
Utah Ct. App.2024Background
- David Ames was convicted by a jury on three counts of possessing a dangerous weapon as a restricted person (based on an axe, a chain and padlock, and a turkey hook), and one count of possessing drug paraphernalia (an altered lightbulb).
- Ames is a Category I restricted person under Utah law, prohibiting him from possessing dangerous weapons.
- The weapons and paraphernalia were discovered following erratic behavior by Ames, attributed to his schizophrenia and suspected methamphetamine use; police were called after Ames made alarming statements and actions in his home.
- Ames’s appeal claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for two reasons: (1) failure to request a jury instruction defining “serious bodily injury” regarding the weapons charges, and (2) failure to move for a directed verdict on the paraphernalia possession count.
- The Court of Appeals found counsel's performance deficient for not requesting the jury instruction but held this prejudiced only the turkey hook conviction and not the axe or chain/padlock convictions; Ames's paraphernalia conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance: jury instruction on 'serious bodily injury' | Counsel failed to request instruction, prejudicing defense. | Counsel may have had a strategic reason to avoid definition. | Not requesting instruction was deficient, prejudiced only turkey hook conviction. |
| Ineffective assistance: directed verdict on paraphernalia count | Counsel should have moved for directed verdict; no evidence lightbulb was used for drugs recently. | Sufficient evidence existed for jury to find it was paraphernalia used by Ames. | No deficiency; there was some evidence to support the conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bird, 2015 UT 7 (Utah 2015) (jury must be instructed on technical terms of art)
- State v. Ekstrom, 2013 UT App 271 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (legal terms of art with technical meaning require jury instruction)
- State v. Baer, 2019 UT App 15 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (standard for moving for a directed verdict)