State v. Gaines, 2026 UT App 44

Background

Officers used Torrential Downpour to link two CSAM file groups, Tropical Cuties and Siberian Mouse, to Gaines's IP address, but they found no CSAM on his encrypted devices during the search. 1
During a police interview, Gaines admitted searching for and knowingly keeping the Russian file group, but he denied knowingly downloading the Tropical Cuties files. 2
The State charged Gaines with twelve counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, five based on Tropical Cuties and seven based on Siberian Mouse. 3
Gaines moved to exclude Torrential Downpour evidence as unreliable and sought discovery of the software and training materials to test its reliability. 4
The trial court denied both motions, allowed officers to testify about Torrential Downpour, and a jury convicted Gaines on all twelve counts. 5
The court of appeals held the Torrential Downpour evidence was admitted in error, reversed the five Tropical Cuties convictions, affirmed the seven Siberian Mouse convictions, and denied Gaines's ineffective-assistance claims and rule 23B motion. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Torrential Downpour evidence admissible under rule 702? 7	Gaines said the State failed to prove the software was reliable.	The State said officers' experience and use showed reliability.	No; the State failed to make the required reliability showing. 8
Did Gaines preserve his challenge to the Torrential Downpour ruling? 9	Gaines argued his motion sought exclusion of all Torrential Downpour results.	The State said he only challenged Sergeant's testimony.	Yes; the substance of the motion preserved the issue. 10
Was denial of discovery about Torrential Downpour error? 11	Gaines said the software and training materials were material to his defense.	The State said the request was immaterial and proprietary.	The court gave guidance that the request may be material on remand. 12
Was the Torrential Downpour error harmless? 13	Gaines said the evidence affected all counts.	The State said his admissions made the error harmless.	Harmless as to Siberian Mouse; prejudicial as to Tropical Cuties. 14
Did counsel provide ineffective assistance? 15	Gaines claimed counsel failed on multiple trial issues.	The State argued counsel acted reasonably and no prejudice showed.	No; all ineffective-assistance claims failed, and rule 23B remand was denied. 16

Key Cases Cited

State v. King, 559 P.3d 96 (Utah Ct. App. 2024) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings 17)
State v. West, 532 P.3d 114 (Utah Ct. App. 2023) (harmless-error standard for wrongly admitted evidence 18)
State v. Rivera, 509 P.3d 257 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (ineffective-assistance claims raised for first time on appeal present a question of law 19)
State v. Tuinman, 535 P.3d 362 (Utah Ct. App. 2023) (rule 23B remand requires a nonspeculative factual allegation that could support ineffectiveness 20)
State v. Repsher, 568 P.3d 1095 (Utah Ct. App. 2025) (preservation requires raising the issue clearly enough for the trial court to rule 21)
Bishop v. GenTec Inc., 48 P.3d 218 (Utah 2002) (the substance of a motion controls preservation, not its label 22)
State v. Peraza, 469 P.3d 1023 (Utah 2020) (proponent of expert testimony bears the threshold reliability burden 23)
Olguin v. Anderton, 456 P.3d 760 (Utah 2019) (an appellate court may affirm on an alternative ground apparent in the record 24)
State v. Roberts, 345 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2015) (software reliability can be shown through expert testimony about the tool's methodology 25)
Eskelson ex rel. Eskelson v. Davis Hospital & Medical Center, 242 P.3d 762 (Utah 2010) (rule 702 reliability depends on case complexity and expert experience 26)
Murray City v. Hall, 663 P.2d 1314 (Utah 1983) (Intoxilyzer results have long been considered universally accepted 27)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance and prejudice are required for ineffective assistance 28)
State v. Pola, 579 P.3d 407 (Utah Ct. App. 2025) (directed verdict proper only when no reasonable jury could convict 29)
State v. Orton, 558 P.3d 443 (Utah Ct. App. 2024) (failing to make a futile motion is usually sound strategy 30)
State v. Hoffman, 503 P.3d 538 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (directed-verdict review includes evidence admitted at trial even if later deemed inadmissible 31)
State v. Griffin, 441 P.3d 1166 (Utah 2015) (no rule 23B remand if new facts still would not establish ineffective assistance 32)
State v. Jordan, 438 P.3d 862 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (expert testimony may be needed to help a jury assess age in difficult CSAM images 33)