State v. Bedell, 2014 UT 1

SB, a patient, alleged Dr. Bedell touched her inappropriately during 2003–2004 visits and prescribed controlled substances; Bedell was charged with two counts of forcible sexual abuse (felonies) resulting in a trial where he was acquitted of the felonies but convicted of a misdemeanor sexual battery; district court admitted 404(b) evidence of other allegations with a limiting instruction contemplated but not fully perfected; defense opened the door to the 404(b) evidence during cross-examination and through its opening statement; the State later used the 404(b) evidence to challenge SB’s credibility and to rebut the defense theory that SB fabricated her account; the Utah Court of Appeals reversed, and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to address, among others, whether the 404(b) evidence and related trial strategy constituted ineffective assistance and plain error, and whether the matter should be remanded for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defense counsel’s handling of the 404(b) evidence amounted to ineffective assistance.	Bedell argued counsel opened the door to 404(b) and thus erred by failing to object.	Bedell contends counsel’s decisions were deficient and prejudicial.	Not upheld; strategic use of 404(b) supported, no ineffective assistance.
Whether the district court committed plain error by admitting/allowing 404(b) evidence.	Bedell claims the court erred by not precluding the 404(b) evidence.	Bedell asserts the court’s ruling as to 404(b) admissibility remained fixed.	Not plain error; defense strategy supported admission and limiting instruction.
Whether the Court of Appeals should be required to address Bedell’s newly discovered evidence argument on remand.	Bedell seeks remand to address new-trial basis.	State contends record supports existing rulings.	Remand to address newly discovered evidence argument.

State v. Bedell, 2012 UT App 171 (Utah Court of Appeals 2012) (pretrial 404(b) ruling and strategy issue discussed by court of appeals)
State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah 2000) (ineffective assistance standard; deference to trial strategy)
State v. Kelley, 2000 UT 41 (Utah) (futile objections not ineffective assistance)
State v. Arguelles, 921 P.2d 439 (Utah 1996) (doctrine of chances; admissibility relevance of prior misconduct)
State v. Labrum, 925 P.2d 937 (Utah 1996) (regularity and appellate review guidance; limits on plain-error claims)
State v. Hall, 946 P.2d 712 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (impartiality concerns; non-intervention policy in trial strategy)