State v. Christensen
387 P.3d 588
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Victim and Jacob Christensen knew each other from middle school and reconnected in college; their relationship included some consensual sexual contact but Victim often felt uncomfortable.
- On the night of the incident, Victim and a roommate ingested Ambien; Victim later hallucinated, blacked out, and awoke in severe rectal pain with Defendant present.
- Victim told Defendant he had raped her; medical exam the same day showed acute genital and anal lacerations and a thigh scratch; police recorded two calls in which Defendant denied rape.
- Defendant was charged with rape and sodomy, with an alternative count of object rape; jury acquitted on rape and sodomy but convicted on object rape.
- At trial the State presented Victim, the roommate, the nurse examiner, police, and a clinical psychologist who testified Victim’s symptoms were consistent with PTSD; Defendant offered his own psychologist as defense expert.
- Defendant appealed, arguing plain error and ineffective assistance based on (1) Victim’s competency to testify, (2) admissibility of the State expert’s PTSD testimony, and (3) defense counsel’s handling of the defense expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Christensen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of Victim to testify | Victim had capacity and opportunity to perceive and recount the assault; competency is a low bar | Victim was rendered incapable to observe or remember events due to Ambien, blackout, and memory gaps | Court: Victim competent; drug effects and incomplete memory go to credibility, not competency; no plain error and no counsel deficiency for failing to object |
| Admissibility of State expert PTSD testimony (Rules 702/403) | Expert’s description of PTSD symptoms helps jury understand evidence and is consistent with Kallin; expert did not opine on ultimate issue | Testimony was profile-style, risked misleading jury and invading jury’s province to decide whether assault occurred | Court: Testimony admissible under Rule 702 and not substantially unfair or confusing under Rule 403; expert limited to consistency with PTSD and did not assert assault occurred |
| Prejudice from State expert (Ineffective assistance) | Even if counsel erred by not objecting, other strong evidence (nurse’s injuries, Victim testimony, recordings, chalkboard) established trauma | Counsel’s failure to object to expert prejudiced jury and constituted ineffective assistance | Court: No prejudice shown; abundant independent evidence of trauma; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Defense counsel’s handling of defense expert (notice, retention of memory expert, choice of expert) | N/A (State opposed addressing insufficiently briefed claims) | Counsel failed to provide notice of topics, chose an expert with past license suspension, and did not obtain a memory expert, constituting deficient performance | Court: Claim inadequately briefed on appeal and declined to address merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calliham, 57 P.3d 220 (Utah 2002) (competency of witness has a low bar; credibility is for the jury)
- State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah 1989) (witness competency requires opportunity and capacity to perceive events)
- State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah 1989) (limits on expert profile testimony that purports to prove abuse without scientific support)
- State v. Kallin, 877 P.2d 138 (Utah 1994) (experts may testify that behavior is consistent with abuse without opining on the ultimate legal conclusion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)