State v. Hare
2015 UT App 179
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Hare sold marijuana to a confidential informant on three occasions; police used the informant and recordings to support charges for distributing in a drug-free zone.
- Hare was charged with three counts and elected a bench (non-jury) trial; he was found guilty on all counts after the bench trial.
- Hare appealed alleging (i) improper waiver of a jury trial, (ii) failure to schedule trial within 30 days, and (iii) ineffective assistance by trial counsel.
- A November 9, 2011 hearing involved a colloquy and waiver of jury trial; the court set February 7, 2012 as the trial date after considering Hare’s availability.
- Court affirmed convictions, holding no reversible error in the waiver or scheduling, and no ineffective assistance by counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of jury trial proper and knowing waiver | Hare asserts the waiver was not knowing or intelligent | Hare claims counsel failed to advise or secure a proper waiver | Waiver valid; no prejudice shown |
| Trial within 30 days of arraignment | Trial was not set within 30 days | Hare invited any potential error by agreeing to a later date | Invited-error doctrine applies; no review of the claim |
| Ineffective assistance by trial counsel | Counsel failed to use audio recordings, cross-examine effectively, and advise on jury trial | Counsel acted within reasonable strategy and there was no prejudice | Counsel's performance not deficient; no prejudice shown |
| Use of audio recordings from controlled buys | Recordings would have helped Hare, possibly changing outcome | Recordings were largely inculpatory and could not have altered result | No prejudice; recordings not shown to change outcome |
| Cross-examination of detectives and faithfulness to trial strategy | Inconsistencies in detectives’ testimony should have been explored | Inconsistencies immaterial; strategic decision not to cross-examine further | No deficient performance; plausible trial strategy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Candland, 309 P.3d 230 (Utah 2013) (standard for evaluating knowing and intelligent waivers; appellate deferential to trial court on factual questions)
- State v. Gallegos, 163 P.3d 692 (Utah 2007) (waiver of counsel concerns; factual inquiries reviewed for correctness)
- Morton v. Continental Baking Co., 938 P.2d 271 (Utah 1997) (docket-management discretion; great latitude to conduct court business)
- State v. Rhinehart, 153 P.3d 830 (Utah App. 2006) (abides by invited-error doctrine for scheduling decisions)
- Layton City v. Carr, 336 P.3d 587 (Utah App. 2014) (Eff. counsel claims require prejudice showing; not prejudicial here)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presence or absence of counsel during critical stage; not controlling for all errors)
- State v. Arguelles, 921 P.2d 439 (Utah 1996) (ineffective assistance and prejudice bifurcation)
- State v. Malaga, 132 P.3d 703 (Utah App. 2006) (Strickland prejudice requirement remains; no automatic relief for counsel deficiency)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain-error prejudice standard; thresholds for reversal)