State v. CDL
2011 UT App 55
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Husband was convicted of four counts of aggravated assault; State alleged the vehicle was a dangerous weapon.
- Two collisions occurred between Husband's green Dodge Shadow and Wife's red Ford Escort during a car pursuit in Salt Lake City.
- Witnesses observed the incidents and called 911; they followed the pursuit and described the collisions as deliberate and threatening.
- Wife did not testify at trial; the State relied on eyewitnesses and a 911 recording to prove the events.
- Prior to trial, trial counsel objected to the 911 recording as unauthenticated, hearsay, and prejudicial; the court ruled on hearsay/prejudice but reserved authentication ruling.
- Following trial, Wife submitted a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) and an unsworn letter alleging the 911 call was fabricated; Husband appeals asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not moving for a directed verdict on the dangerous weapon element? | Husband argues insufficient evidence to prove weapon element. | Husband contends the vehicle was not used as a dangerous weapon. | Sufficient evidence supported weapon use; no ineffective assistance. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not renewing authentication/hearsay/prejudice objections to the 911 call? | 911 call and transcript were properly authenticated and admissible. | Authentication unclear; hearsay and prejudice issues should bar admission. | 911 call authenticated; excited utterance exception applied; no ineffective assistance. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to move for a new trial based on the VIS | VIS contained new statements recanting the 911 call and events. | Wife's absence or VIS could yield new evidence favorable to Husband. | Insufficient evidence to treat VIS as new evidence; no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cristobal, 238 P.3d 1096 (Utah App. 2010) (sufficiency standard for directed verdict on dangerous-weapon element)
- State v. Kelley, 1 P.3d 546 (Utah 2000) (failure to raise futile objections does not constitute ineffective assistance)
- State v. Nicholls, 203 P.3d 976 (Utah 2009) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice required)
- State v. Lafferty, 175 P.3d 530 (Utah 2007) (presumption of effectiveness; limitations on post hoc claims)
- State v. Maestas, 984 P.2d 376 (Utah 1999) (wide latitude of trial strategy in evaluating effectiveness)
- State v. Workman, 122 P.3d 639 (Utah 2005) (three-tiered review for hearsay admissibility)