State v. Baugh, 504 P.3d 171

Victim testified to three specific instances of alleged sexual abuse: two at the family house and one at an apartment; she did not specify dates for each incident.
State charged Baugh with two counts of aggravated sexual abuse tied to years: count 1 (2012) and count 2 (2014).
During closing, the prosecutor told the jury that either of the alleged incidents could be used to satisfy either count—that "any two of those experiences" could fulfill the two counts.
Jury instructions and verdict forms did not require jurors to unanimously agree on which specific act supported each count, and defense counsel did not request a specific-unanimity instruction or a special verdict form.
After lengthy deliberations and a late-night admonition to continue, the jury acquitted on the 2012 count and convicted on the 2014 count; Baugh appealed claiming ineffective assistance for failing to secure unanimity instructions.
The Utah Court of Appeals vacated the conviction and remanded, holding counsel’s omission was deficient and prejudiced the defense by undermining confidence in the outcome.

Issue	State's Argument	Baugh's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to obtain a jury instruction requiring unanimity as to which specific act supported each count	Counsel’s omission was not prejudicial; any alleged admissions and the evidence supported conviction; Alires did not control because of timing	Counsel was ineffective for failing to request specific-unanimity instructions or special verdict form, allowing jurors to mix-and-match acts across counts	Vacated conviction: counsel performed deficiently and prejudice undermined confidence in the verdict; remand for further proceedings

Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (recognizing Sixth Amendment unanimity requirement in criminal trials)
State v. Hummel, 393 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (unanimity required as to each count and specific criminal act)
State v. Alires, 455 P.3d 636 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (failure to link acts to counts requires specific-unanimity instruction; counsel deficient for not requesting one)
State v. Saunders, 992 P.2d 951 (Utah 1999) (Article I, §10 unanimity clause requires jurors agree on particular criminal act)
State v. Scott, 462 P.3d 350 (Utah 2020) (standards for ineffective assistance review)
State v. Mendoza, 496 P.3d 275 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (defense counsel’s duty to protect unanimity and State’s burden of proof)