State v. Huey, 516 P.3d 345

Victim ("Sadie"), a 16-year-old, was placed in Huey’s care by her mother for community-service/work; Huey instead isolated her, supplied methamphetamine, and groomed/controlled her.
Over several days Huey repeatedly drugged Sadie, fondled and digitally penetrated her, and ultimately forced penile-vaginal intercourse; Sadie fled, reported the assault, and tested positive for methamphetamine; medical exam found genital lacerations; male DNA matched Huey on Sadie’s breast.
The State charged Huey with rape, forcible sodomy, object rape, and forcible sexual abuse (plus unrelated drug/exploitation counts). A toxicology expert (Expert) was disclosed; trial counsel claimed inadequate notice of Expert’s opinion about effects on “naive” meth users and sought a continuance or exclusion; the trial court denied relief.
At trial the State admitted testimony from Mother, a friend (Jessica), and Randy recounting out-of-court statements by Sadie; Trial Counsel did not object. Expert testified about pharmacokinetic differences in naive vs. experienced meth users.
The jury convicted Huey on the sexual-offense counts. On appeal Huey challenged (1) the denial of a continuance/exclusion of Expert, (2) the reliability/admissibility of Expert’s testimony, and (3) the effectiveness of counsel for failing to object to alleged hearsay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court abused discretion by denying continuance/excluding State toxicology expert	State: notice and scope (toxicology, effects of meth) were adequate; expert testimony was proper toxicology evidence	Huey: inadequate notice of Expert’s opinions ("naive user" effects) prejudiced defense and denied opportunity to prepare rebuttal	Court: even assuming error, Huey failed to show prejudice given strong independent evidence on other non-consent theories (position of special trust, victim’s refusal, coercion); no reversible abuse of discretion
Expert’s testimony about “naive” meth users lacked reliable foundation	State: testimony about pharmacokinetic differences is within toxicology expertise and was admissible	Huey: foundation unreliable and testimony speculative; should have been excluded	Court: reviewed for abuse of discretion but found any possible error non-prejudicial because other evidence independently supported verdict (especially special-trust theory)
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to hearsay (Mother, Jessica, Randy)	State: statements were not offered for truth or fit hearsay exceptions (excited utterance)	Huey: these were inadmissible hearsay and counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudicial	Court: counsel’s forbearance was objectively reasonable because statements plausibly non-hearsay or admissible as excited utterances; Huey did not show prejudice from counsel’s choices

State v. Peraza, 479 P.3d 1139 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (prejudice standard when continuance requested to procure witness)
State v. Lopez, 417 P.3d 116 (Utah 2018) (standard of review for expert testimony admission)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Scott, 462 P.3d 350 (Utah 2020) (reasonableness inquiry for counsel performance)
State v. Smith, 909 P.2d 236 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (elements and timing considerations for excited-utterance exception)
State v. Williams, 462 P.3d 832 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (analysis of spontaneity and timing in excited-utterance hearsay exception)
State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913 (Utah 1987) ("reasonable likelihood" standard for prejudice in criminal appeals)
State v. Rowley, 189 P.3d 109 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (example of what can constitute a position of special trust)