State v. Arriaga, 2012 UT App 295

Arriaga was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child; acquitted on related rape and sodomy charges.
Victim began abuse at age 9–10, lived with family where defendant and victim’s aunt resided; victim later became pregnant by defendant.
Defendant admitted paternity but denied abuse; he claimed the relationship began after victim turned 18.
During trial, two jurors indicated belief that police officers tell the truth more than defendants; defense did not question them further.
Defense sought to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior sexual abuse by other family members, but the court ruled the evidence inadmissible for lack of a Rule 412 motion and analyzed merits, concluding it would be excluded under Rule 412/403.
Appeal, via new counsel, challenged (1) juror questioning, (2) Rule 412 motion failure, (3) credibility-impeachment strategy; trial court held no prejudice under Strickland analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did failure to further question biased jurors prejudice the defendant?	Arriaga contends prejudice from biased seating.	Arriaga argues actual bias was shown by jurors’ voir dire.	No prejudicial seating; jurors could be impartial.
Was failing to file a Rule 412 motion prejudicial for admitting prior abuse evidence?	Rule 412 motion was necessary to admit such evidence.	Counsel reasonably relied on inapplicability; merits addressed anyway.	No prejudice; the court would have barred the evidence regardless.
Was trial counsel ineffective for not further impeaching the victim's credibility with additional evidence?	Additional inconsistencies could have undermined credibility.	Counsel had strategic reasons; not outside the wide range of professional conduct.	No ineffective assistance; decisions within reasonable trial strategy.

State v. Olsen, 860 P.2d 332 (Utah 1993) (juror bias remedy requires actual bias to prove prejudice)
State v. Crosby, 927 P.2d 638 (Utah 1996) (strong presumption of competence; questioning allowed but bias not proven absent)
Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516 (Utah 1994) (failure to file futile motion not ineffective assistance)
State v. Lenkart, 262 P.3d 1 (Utah 2011) (standard for reviewing ineffective assistance on direct appeal)