State v. Heywood
357 P.3d 565
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Mother and her 3-year-old daughter passed Heywood’s house twice and observed a man in the front doorway exposing himself; Mother made eye contact with him and later identified Heywood as the man.
- Only two men (Heywood and his adoptive brother) were in the home at the time; no evidence suggested a third person.
- Officer responded, interviewed Heywood at his home (about 30 minutes), compared clothing/body structure with Brother, and showed Mother Heywood’s driver-license photo after she had identified the person at the scene.
- A jury convicted Heywood of two counts of lewdness involving a child; Heywood appealed asserting multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
- The appellate court reviewed Strickland standards and State v. Clopten factors governing when eyewitness-expert testimony or cautionary instructions are warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Heywood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to call an eyewitness-identification expert | State: trial counsel not deficient because Clopten factors largely absent; expert unnecessary and could harm defense strategy | Heywood: counsel ineffective for not calling expert to highlight identification weaknesses | Court: No deficiency or prejudice; Clopten factors not present and strategic choice reasonable |
| Failure to request Long cautionary instruction | State: instruction unnecessary and less effective than expert testimony | Heywood: counsel ineffective for not requesting Long instruction when ID central | Court: Claim inadequately briefed and would fail—Long less effective and Clopten factors absent |
| Failure to investigate/use photo lineup | State: counsel adequately challenged single-photo ID via cross-examination and closing argument | Heywood: counsel ineffective for not developing evidence that officer violated lineup policy | Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; cross-examination and closing addressed risks of single-photo ID; universe of suspects limited to two men |
| Failure to move to suppress statements (Miranda) | State: Miranda not required because Heywood was not in custody | Heywood: counsel ineffective for not filing suppression motion for statements taken at home | Court: No Miranda violation; interview in home, brief, no objective indicia of custody—motion would have been futile |
| Failure to investigate/present video-game (alibi) evidence | State: game-playing was conceded at trial; proffered log adds nothing identifying who used account | Heywood: counsel ineffective for not presenting time-log to support alibi | Court: Rule 23B evidence adds nothing material; no deficient performance or prejudice |
| Cumulative error | State: errors do not undermine confidence in verdict | Heywood: combined errors deprived fair trial | Court: Inadequately briefed and fails on merits—evidence still ties Heywood to offense |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clopten, 223 P.3d 1103 (Utah 2009) (sets factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identifications and need for expert testimony)
- State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986) (requires cautionary jury instruction on eyewitness ID when identification is central and requested)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)