State v. Draper, 560 P.3d 122

Background

Tyler Draper, a Monticello-area man, was tried on six rape counts and one aggravated assault count based on alleged nonconsensual sexual encounters with four women he knew from high school; the jury convicted him on four rape counts and acquitted on three charges.
Defense issued a subpoena to a victim advocate at a local victim services Center; the court granted the Center’s motion to quash under Utah Rule of Evidence 512, excluding the advocate’s testimony and records.
The court limited defense expert testimony about interview protocols, SANE exams, and Code‑R reports—permitting only general testimony on best interview practices and not permitting expert testimony where the State did not rely on such interviews or reports.
Draper raised multiple ineffective‑assistance claims on appeal and sought a Rule 23B remand to develop additional facts (e.g., counsel’s consultation, failure to introduce texts or videos, failure to prepare/advise re: testimony).
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Draper’s convictions and denied the Rule 23B remand, holding (inter alia) that (1) any additional victim‑advocate testimony would likely be cumulative and not prejudicial, (2) the limits on expert testimony were within the court’s discretion, and (3) Draper failed to show a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome from the proffered additional evidence or counsel errors.

Issues

Issue	Draper’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Victim‑advocate privilege / subpoena to Center	Privilege did not apply because meetings were not confidential, victims met together, and exceptions (including criminal‑justice advocate exceptions) should permit testimony; counsel ineffective for failing to press waiver theories	Communications were privileged under Utah Rule 512 and other laws; exclusion protected confidential advocacy and any testimony would be cumulative	Court affirmed quash: privilege applied; even if error, Draper failed to show prejudice because jury already knew victims communicated and record lacks evidence advocate would have aided defense
Exclusion/limitation of expert on interview taint, CJC protocols, SANE/Code‑R	Expert needed to explain taint and interview‑practice issues beyond juror knowledge; exclusion deprived defense	Expert testimony would be cumulative or irrelevant where State did not rely on CJC/SANE evidence; jury can assess credibility without expert	Court held district court did not abuse discretion: general jury competence and lack of direct relevance justified limits
Right to present complete defense / counsel’s pretrial choices (waiver of preliminary hearing; failure to record interviews; not calling expert)	Rulings and counsel conduct prevented a full defense; counsel ineffective for strategy and consultation failures	Parties explained waiver was discussed on the record; counsel made tactical choices; many alleged errors would be cumulative or risk prejudice if used	Court declined to find ineffective assistance on record; many claims lacked prejudice—conviction cured any preliminary‑hearing defect; alleged missing evidence likely cumulative or would have exposed Draper to damaging rebuttal
Rule 23B remand to develop ineffective‑assistance record (texts, testimony, consultation, decision whether to testify)	Draper proffered affidavits and materials and sought remand to prove counsel deficient and prejudicially so	State argued proffers did not establish both deficient performance and reasonable probability of different outcome; many proffered items would be inadmissible or harmful to Draper	Denied remand: proffers failed to surmount Strickland prejudice prong and many proposed items were cumulative, inadmissible under rules (e.g., Rule 412) or would invite damaging rebuttal

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test)
State v. Perea, 322 P.3d 624 (Utah 2013) (expert evidence required on issues jurors are unlikely to understand, e.g., false confessions)
State v. Clopten, 223 P.3d 1103 (Utah 2009) (permitting expert to explain problems with witness memory/eyewitness ID where helpful)
Staley v. Northern Utah Healthcare Corp., 230 P.3d 1007 (Utah 2010) (existence of privilege is a legal question reviewed for correctness)
State v. King, 283 P.3d 980 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (cumulative evidence less likely to be prejudicial in harmless‑error analysis)
State v. Suhail, 525 P.3d 550 (Utah Ct. App. 2023) (standard for admission/exclusion of expert testimony; Rule 23B remand guidance)
State v. Reece, 349 P.3d 712 (Utah 2015) (harmless‑error and prejudice standards)