State v. Haar, 500 P.3d 102

Gavin Michael Haar was convicted of murder and child abuse after the death of his girlfriend’s 2‑year‑old son (Victim); appellant lived with Victim for several weeks and was alone with him the night Victim became unresponsive.
Multiple witnesses observed frequent bruising on Victim; Haar repeatedly told an ATV‑accident story that he later admitted fabricating in jail letters and at trial.
Autopsy found multiple blunt‑force injuries (abdominal organ tears, internal bleeding, facial and gripping bruises) inconsistent with an ATV accident; medical examiner ruled death a homicide.
Investigators and emergency personnel described inconsistencies in Haar’s accounts and his behavior at the scene and hospital; texts and recorded statements showed admissions of fault and remorse.
At trial Haar challenged investigative witnesses’ opinion testimony about his credibility and the prosecutor’s few closing‑argument sentences; those objections were not preserved, so the court reviewed under plain‑error and ineffective‑assistance standards.
The court held that, even assuming error, Haar could not show prejudice given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and affirmed the convictions (but cautioned prosecutors against vengeance‑style rhetoric).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of officers/investigator testimony opining on credibility and asserting Haar was culpable	Testimony was admissible/contextual and, at worst, harmless because Haar admitted the ATV story was false and other evidence independently established guilt	Testimony improperly vouched for credibility and usurped jury’s role; trial counsel ineffective for not objecting	Unpreserved; even if error, no prejudice—overwhelming evidence and Haar’s admissions mean outcome unchanged; conviction affirmed
Prosecutor’s closing remarks appealing to Victim’s life and urging the jury to “hold Haar accountable”/“pay the price”	Remarks were brief, within advocacy latitude, and harmless in light of strong evidence	Remarks appealed to passion/vengeance and shifted focus from law to emotion; counsel ineffective for failing to object	Unpreserved; even if improper, no prejudice due to strength of State’s case; convictions affirmed; appellate court warns prosecutors against vengeance language

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (preservation exceptions and plain‑error framework)
State v. Ring, 424 P.3d 845 (Utah 2018) (appellate review of ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Galindo, 402 P.3d 8 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (plain error and ineffective‑assistance prejudice standards align)
State v. Martinez, 480 P.3d 1103 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (prejudice analysis under plain error and ineffective assistance)
State v. Wright, 304 P.3d 887 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (isolated improper closing remarks not reversible where evidence is strong)
State v. Campos, 309 P.3d 1160 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (prosecutorial appeals to passion may be improper; consider strength of evidence)
State v. Todd, 173 P.3d 170 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (jury verdict must be based on evidence, not vengeance or passion)
State v. Cuaquentzi, 365 P.3d 735 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (no prejudice where overwhelming evidence supports guilty verdict)
Heslop v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 390 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (appellate briefing requirements; courts reluctant to dismiss partially developed arguments)