State v. Cesspooch, 544 P.3d 1046

Zachary Cesspooch was stopped at the Vernal, Utah courthouse security in June 2018 and found with a baggie containing methamphetamine residue.
He was charged with possession or use of a controlled substance (class A misdemeanor) and possession or use of drug paraphernalia (class B misdemeanor).
At trial, the court’s instruction to the jury included the classifications (misdemeanor levels) of both offenses; defense counsel did not object.
The jury acquitted Cesspooch of the controlled substance charge but convicted him on the paraphernalia charge.
On appeal, Cesspooch argued that informing the jury of offense classifications constituted plain error or, alternatively, ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object.
The appeal required consideration of whether identifying the crimes’ classifications in jury instructions prejudiced the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was it plain error to inform the jury of offense classifications?	Jury should not hear about classifications as they relate only to punishment and could bias deliberations.	No Utah case clearly forbids informing jury of classifications; any error harmless.	Court agrees this was obvious error, but not prejudicial in this case.
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to the instruction?	Counsel’s failure to object amounted to ineffective assistance.	No showing of prejudice from counsel's omission.	No prejudice; ineffective assistance claim rejected.

State v. Cude, 784 P.2d 1197 (Utah 1989) (jury should not consider possible punishment; sentencing is for the court)
State v. Blubaugh, 904 P.2d 688 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (commenting that punishment is not the jury’s province and mentioning it is error)
State v. Gallegos, 427 P.3d 578 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (sentencing information is improper in jury deliberations)
State v. McNeil, 365 P.3d 699 (Utah 2016) (prejudice standard for plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel claims)