State v. Edgar, 2017 UT App 54

In Nov. 2013 police arrested Michael John Edgar in a borrowed car; a locked briefcase in the trunk contained heroin packaged for resale, other drugs, paraphernalia, scales, multiple IDs, and two prescription bottles bearing Edgar’s name.
Edgar was charged with multiple counts of possession with intent to distribute, possession of paraphernalia, and theft by receiving stolen property.
On the morning of trial the State moved to file a Second Amended Information adding drug‑free zone enhancements (alleging the arrest occurred within 1,000 feet of an athletic training facility); testimony placed the arrest ~400–420 feet from the facility.
A DEA agent testified that, while charges were pending, Edgar contacted the agent and offered to cooperate with regard to a heroin trafficker capable of moving pounds of heroin in exchange for consideration; defense counsel objected but the court admitted evidence of Edgar’s contact (excluding unrelated-case testimony).
The jury convicted Edgar on multiple counts, including several first‑ and second‑degree drug offenses with drug‑free zone enhancements.

Issue	Edgar's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admission of DEA agent testimony under Utah R. Evid. 403	Testimony linking Edgar to a high‑level trafficker was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant; should have been excluded	Testimony was probative of Edgar’s access to large quantities and intent/opportunity to distribute; prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value	Not preserved for appeal as a 403 objection; alternatively, counsel not ineffective — probative value outweighed prejudice and no reasonable probability of a different verdict without it
Failure to object to filing of Second Amended Information on morning of trial (drug‑free zone enhancement)	Counsel should have objected/obtained continuance to investigate distance and develop defense	Evidence presented placed Edgar within 1,000 feet; Edgar points to no evidence that further investigation would have shown otherwise	Counsel not ineffective — Edgar failed to show what additional investigation would have produced or a reasonable probability of a different outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (must show reasonable probability of different result to prove prejudice from evidentiary error)
State v. Jones, 345 P.3d 1195 (Utah) (rule 403 requires probative value be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice)
United States v. Carty, 993 F.2d 1005 (1st Cir.) (post‑arrest statements about source probative of intent/opportunity to distribute)
Williams v. State, 796 A.2d 1281 (Del.) (defendant’s connection to a distribution organization probative of access to large quantities)