State v. C.D.L., 250 P.3d 69

Husband was convicted of four counts of aggravated assault for ramming Wife's vehicle with his car during a domestic dispute in Salt Lake City.
State's theory treated Husband's vehicle as a dangerous weapon; Wife did not testify at trial.
Two witnesses observed the incidents, described deliberate ramming, and 911 was called reporting the chase and collisions.
911 recording and transcript were admitted; Husband's counsel objected on authentication, hearsay, and prejudicial grounds.
Victim Impact Statement (VIS) later described the 911 call as a fabrication; Wife declined trial testimony for unspecified legal reasons.
Husband appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel on three grounds: (1) failure to move for directed verdict, (2) failure to renew objections to 911 call evidence, (3) failure to move for a new trial based on VIS.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Directed verdict sufficiency	State argues sufficient evidence supported dangerous weapon element.	Husband contends no competent evidence to prove weapon use.	Evidence sufficient; directed verdict not warranted.
Authentication and admissibility of 911 call	911 call adequately authenticated and admissible as excited utterance.	Authentication not proven; hearsay and prejudicial concerns unresolved.	Authentication proper; recordings admissible as excited utterance; not ineffective assistance.
Hearsay and excited utterance ruling	Call qualifies as excited utterance, admissible under rule 808(2).	Hearsay and lack of foundation undermines admissibility.	Excited utterance established; admissible.
Unfair prejudice under Rule 408	911 evidence unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded.	Evidence probative and not unfairly prejudicial.	No abuse of discretion; probative value outweighs prejudice.
New trial based on VIS as newly discovered evidence	VIS constitutes new evidence recanting 911 call and supporting defense.	Insufficient basis to deem VIS new; speculative impact on strategy.	Insufficient showing of new evidence; no reversible error.

State v. Cristobal, 2010 UT App 228, 288 P.3d 1096 (Utah Ct.App.2010) (sufficiency for dangerous weapon elements; directed verdict standard)
State v. Kelley, 2000 UT 41, 1 P.3d 546 (Utah Supreme Court 2000) (failure to raise futile objections not ineffectiveness)
State v. Bryant, 1999 UT 12, 203 P.3d 976 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (ineffective assistance standard; subsidiary review)
State v. Maestas, 1999 UT 32, 984 P.2d 376 (Utah Supreme Court 1999) (trial strategy and standard of reasonable effectiveness)
Lafferty v. State, 2007 UT 73, 175 P.3d 530 (Utah Supreme Court 2007) (presumption of effectiveness; record for ineffectiveness claims)
State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah Supreme Court 2000) (burden shifting and remand for ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Workman, 2005 UT 66, 122 P.3d 689 (Utah Supreme Court 2005) (hearsay rule and ultimate admissibility review)
State v. Rushton, 2003 UT App 25U, 2008 WL 21299576 (Utah Ct.App.2003) (authentication by circumstantial/contextual evidence)