State v. Brocksmith
424 P.3d 1122
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Brocksmith drove an SUV into oncoming traffic, causing serious injuries; he admitted recent marijuana use and police obtained a warrant for a blood draw showing THC and a THC metabolite.
- He was charged with two counts under Utah Code § 58-37-8(2)(g)–(h)(ii) (the Measurable Amount Statute): negligent operation causing serious bodily injury or death while knowingly and intentionally having a measurable amount of a controlled substance in the body.
- At trial Brocksmith orally moved to dismiss, arguing the statute was facially and as-applied unconstitutional (federal and state constitutions), but offered no legal authority or specific constitutional provisions; he argued only that the statute lacks a causal nexus between a trace substance and causing an accident.
- The trial court denied the motion; a jury convicted Brocksmith on both counts, and he appealed alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to raise multiple constitutional challenges.
- The appellate court treated most challenges as unpreserved and reviewed whether counsel’s omission amounted to ineffective assistance under Strickland.
- The court held counsel’s failure to press the novel constitutional theories was not objectively deficient because no controlling authority at trial compelled those arguments; therefore Brocksmith could not show ineffective assistance and the convictions were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that the Measurable Amount Statute violates Utah’s uniform operation of laws clause | Brocksmith: statute conflicts with uniform operation clause (unpreserved) | State: no controlling authority showed a violation; counsel not deficient for not raising novel argument | Counsel not ineffective; no established law required the challenge be raised |
| Whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague | Brocksmith: statute is vague as to culpable nexus between substance and driving harm (unpreserved) | State: statute not clearly violative; counsel not deficient for omitting novel vagueness claim | Counsel not ineffective; vagueness claim was novel and unsupported at trial |
| Whether statute is unconstitutional for lacking an explicit causation element (preservation contested) | Brocksmith: statute lacks causation element and thus creates presumption of guilt | State: defendant failed to preserve; no authority required a causation element; counsel not deficient | Issue unpreserved; counsel not ineffective for failing to make this novel argument |
| Preservation Requirement for Constitutional Issues | Brocksmith: oral argument preserved causation claim by mentioning "causal nexus" | State: preservation requires timely, specific raising plus supporting evidence/authority | Court: insufficient specificity and no legal authority; not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (trial counsel not deficient for failing to advance novel legal theories absent then-existing law)
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (preservation requires more than mere mention; supporting authority or evidence needed)
- State v. McDaniel, 246 P.3d 162 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (three-factor test for preservation: timely, specific, with supporting authority/evidence)
- Brown v. United States, 311 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2002) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise issue unsupported by precedent)