427 P.3d 1247
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- On Sept. 18, 2014, Michael Hill accompanied his girlfriend to the victim’s cabin and helped remove multiple items (guns, bow, clothing, fishing gear, etc.).
- Victim reported burglary; police found a broken window, pry marks, eyewitness identifications, and recovered stolen items (including a pawned bow) from Hill’s residence and his roommate’s car.
- Hill admitted helping carry items but claimed he believed they belonged to his girlfriend and that he only assisted after items were out of the cabin.
- Girlfriend refused to testify at trial invoking the Fifth Amendment; Hill was convicted of second-degree burglary and third-degree theft by receiving stolen property.
- Hill moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to (1) call Girlfriend, (2) admit an email purportedly from Victim, and (3) introduce Girlfriend’s police interview; the district court denied the motion and Hill appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Girlfriend | Hill: counsel should have secured Girlfriend’s testimony to show he believed property belonged to her | State: Girlfriend refused to comply with subpoena; counsel sought continuance; subpoenaing would be futile | Court: No ineffective assistance — subpoena would have been futile given her Fifth Amendment refusal |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not admitting the email from Victim | Hill: email showed Victim treated items as belonging to Girlfriend, supporting Hill’s belief | State: Court found the email was likely fabricated and Girlfriend had access/motive to forge it | Court: No ineffective assistance — omission was reasonable strategy given fabrication finding |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not using Girlfriend’s police interview | Hill: counsel failed to review/admit a recording that might support his story | State: Recording contained statements contradicting Hill and was unlikely to help defense | Court: No reversible prejudice shown; Hill failed to prove prejudice from omission |
| Whether Hill was prejudiced by any alleged deficiencies | Hill: omissions affected outcome | State: Strategic choices and lack of admissible supportive evidence meant no prejudice | Court: No prejudice established; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. J.A.L., 262 P.3d 1 (Utah 2011) (standard for appellate review of ineffective-assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 (Utah 1990) (counsel’s duty to investigate; omission of futile acts not ineffective)
- State v. Gunter, 304 P.3d 866 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (no requirement for counsel to pursue futile acts)
- State v. Taylor, 947 P.2d 681 (Utah 1997) (counsel may omit evidence if it likely harms the defense)
- Archuleta v. Galetka, 267 P.3d 232 (Utah 2011) (courts may dispose of ineffectiveness claims on prejudice ground)