State v. Heyen, 2020 UT App 147

Defendant Lee Ervin Heyen was convicted of multiple rapes of two 15‑year‑old girls (five rape convictions on appeal) and related drug distribution counts; he appealed only the rape convictions.
Heyen has numerous visible tattoos, including white‑supremacist imagery (SAC on his forehead, "88," a broken Celtic cross), and also a spiderweb tattoo on his penis that he sought to admit as impeachment evidence.
The State admitted photographs showing many of Heyen’s tattoos; some racist‑symbol tattoos were the subject of pretrial rulings limiting inflammatory use but several images were shown to the jury without objection.
Defense counsel did not conceal Heyen’s face/neck tattoos at trial, questioned jurors about tattoos during voir dire, used the visible tattoos in opening to argue Heyen was an easy target, and introduced the penis tattoo to challenge the victims’ identifications.
Heyen argued on appeal that counsel was ineffective for not covering the tattoos (and for not requesting a cautionary jury instruction), asserting the visible tattoos prejudiced the jury and undermined his credibility challenge to the victims.
The Utah Court of Appeals applied Strickland, focused on the deficient‑performance prong, and concluded counsel’s decisions were reasonable trial strategy (photos would be shown anyway, concealment could backfire, voir dire desensitized jurors), so Heyen’s ineffective‑assistance claim failed and convictions were affirmed.

Issue	Heyen's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not covering Heyen’s face/neck tattoos	Not covering tattoos prejudiced jury; reasonable probability of acquittal if tattoos concealed	Counsel reasonably chose transparency/strategic use of tattoos (photos already admitted; concealment could look deceptive; used to desensitize jury)	Counsel’s choice was reasonable trial strategy; performance not deficient, claim fails
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cautionary jury instruction about tattoos	Counsel should have sought an instruction to mitigate prejudice	Heyen offered no proposed instruction and cannot show what difference it would have made (no demonstrated prejudice)	Failure to propose instruction prevents showing prejudice; claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Scott, 462 P.3d 350 (Utah 2020) (trial counsel’s strategic decisions receive wide latitude; reasonableness standard)
State v. Nelson, 355 P.3d 1031 (Utah 2015) (real‑time strategic judgment standard for counsel’s choices)
State v. Clark, 89 P.3d 162 (Utah 2004) (courts defer to tactical choices unless no reasonable basis exists)
State v. Munguia, 253 P.3d 1082 (Utah 2011) (prejudice must be a demonstrable reality, not speculation)