State v. Carranza, 533 P.3d 850

Feb. 1–2, 2018: Ron testified Carranza accosted him in a park, held him at gunpoint, stole belongings, forced him into a car, bound him in a house, made him do chores, and later forced him to buy ammunition; police later arrested Carranza after a chase.
The State’s case depended largely on Ron’s account of private events; store employees corroborated that Ron asked to call 911 and said he had been kidnapped.
Carranza maintained Ron’s story was fabricated and identified a homeowner (Witness) who could testify Ron appeared normal at the house, left voluntarily, and possibly was high when he returned.
Trial counsel did not timely investigate Witness; the investigator’s formal contact and Trial Counsel’s call to Witness occurred only during the second day of trial, and defense presented no witnesses.
At an evidentiary hearing after conviction, Witness testified he spoke with Carranza and Ron at the house, described Ron as not fearful and free to leave, and said Ron seemed anxious/high when he returned; the district court denied a new trial.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed Carranza’s kidnapping, robbery, and firearm convictions, concluding counsel’s failure to timely investigate Witness was deficient and prejudicial; the court also offered guidance that the store employees’ testimony was likely admissible as non-hearsay or under the present-sense-impression exception.

Issue	Carranza's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Failure to investigate a key defense witness (Witness)	Trial counsel failed to timely investigate or call Witness whose testimony would undercut Ron’s credibility and support Carranza’s version	Even if Witness testified, his testimony adds little, may be disbelieved, and other evidence (straps, paraphernalia) corroborates victim	Counsel performed deficiently by not timely investigating; prejudice shown because Witness’s testimony would have meaningfully undercut the State’s case—convictions reversed and remanded
Failure to object to hearsay statements by store employees	Clerk and manager repeated Ron’s out-of-court statements, improperly bolstering Ron’s credibility; counsel ineffective for not objecting	Statements were admissible to explain employees’ response (not for truth) or as present-sense impressions; reasonable counsel could waive objections	Court explained competent counsel could forgo objections because testimony was likely admissible either as non-hearsay to explain conduct or as present-sense impression; guidance for retrial provided

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
State v. J.A.L., 262 P.3d 1 (counsel’s duty to investigate underlying facts; investigation required for reasonable strategic choices)
State v. Griffin, 441 P.3d 1166 (investigation sets foundation for defense strategy)
State v. Hales, 152 P.3d 321 (strategic choices require adequate factual investigation)
Gregg v. State, 279 P.3d 396 (evidence affecting victim credibility can undermine confidence in outcome)
State v. Crestani, 771 P.2d 1085 (counsel should promptly investigate; ABA standards supporting investigative duty)