State v. Hunter, 496 P.3d 119

Surveillance officers observed a suspected drug sale from adjacent second‑story offices about a hundred yards from a shelter using personal binoculars at about 7:30 p.m.; officers described a White buyer and a Black seller in a hoodie and camouflage pants. The observed exchange lasted under 20 seconds.
Officers radioed takedown units; officers soon located and arrested Glenn Hunter, who matched much of the description and was found with methamphetamine, cash, and a firearm; lab tests confirmed meth on both buyer and Hunter but no purity comparison was done.
At trial Hunter conceded possession but argued mistaken identity as to the distributor; defense counsel emphasized identification weaknesses in opening, cross‑examination, and closing, but did not request a Long cautionary eyewitness instruction or call an eyewitness‑identification expert.
The jury convicted Hunter of distribution; the court of appeals affirmed, holding Long inapplicable to so‑called "real‑time" identifications, and rejected ineffective‑assistance and sufficiency challenges.
The Utah Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ rule that Long never applies to real‑time identifications, but affirmed Hunter’s conviction because trial counsel’s decision not to request a Long instruction was a reasonable tactical choice that could have backfired.

Issue	Hunter's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Long cautionary instruction applies to “real‑time” identifications	Long should apply because Long addresses perception/acquisition issues present even in contemporaneous observations	Long applies only to memory‑based or facial‑recognition identifications; real‑time observations are not within Long	Court: Long can apply to real‑time identifications; vacates court of appeals’ categorical real‑time rule
Whether failure to request a Long instruction was ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel was deficient for not requesting Long where mistaken ID was central and Long factors applied	Even if Long were available, counsel reasonably could decline it because a Long instruction might reinforce officers’ testimony and harm the defense; no prejudice shown	Court: Counsel was not constitutionally deficient—strategic choice not to request Long was reasonable; conviction affirmed

State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986) (establishes cautionary instruction and factors bearing on eyewitness reliability)
State v. Clopten, 223 P.3d 1103 (Utah 2009) (discusses jury unawareness of eyewitness limits and admissibility/assistance issues)
State v. Maestas, 984 P.2d 376 (Utah 1999) (found counsel deficient where no cautionary instruction was requested and identifications had acute flaws)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
State v. Bowdrey, 438 P.3d 946 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (court of appeals decision treating some contemporaneous observations as outside Long)
State v. Gallegos, 463 P.3d 641 (Utah 2020) (recent Utah articulation of Strickland standard in state law context)