State v. King, 2010 Utah App. LEXIS 389

King was convicted of attempted sexual abuse of a child, a third-degree felony, after a trial following a prior reversal and remand.
Two earlier appellate decisions (King I–King IV) and the Utah Supreme Court remands culminated in a new trial order.
At trial, victim testified about a 'tickle fight' and touching lasting two to three minutes; defense asserted duration was brief.
The prosecutor argued in closing that the conduct occurred for only a few seconds and characterized the victim's 'What if I lied?' remark as concern about reputation.
The jury convicted of the lesser offense of sexual abuse of a child; the court reduced the conviction to the third-degree offense of attempted sexual abuse of a child.
The record lacked a copy of the jury instructions; the trial court reconstructed 26 instructions which it found to be the actual set given.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments	King claims the prosecutor's remarks misdescribed evidence and improperly influenced the jury.	King asserts the statements were improper and prejudicial, warranting reversal.	Misstatements found plain error cumulatively; reversal due to cumulative error.
Exclusion and bolstering of the alleged victim's statements	King contends exclusion of inconsistent statements and improper bolstering affected credibility.	King argues admissibility/credibility issues with bolstering evidence.	No reversible error; error, if any, harmless and not prejudicial.
Admission of the preliminary hearing transcript	King challenges use of the transcript as evidence and for ineffective assistance implications.	King claims improper admission and ineffective strategy.	Counsel's strategy deemed reasonable; no reversible plain error.
Inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report	King argues PSI inaccuracies were unresolved and require findings.	King waived challenge by not raising at sentencing.	Issue waived; no reversal.
Reconstruction of jury instructions	King objects to missing original record and the court's reconstruction method.	King failed to show prejudice; reconstruction adequate.	No reversible error; reconstruction deemed adequate.

State v. Kohl, 999 P.2d 7 (Utah 2000) (prosecutorial misconduct standard of abuse of discretion; substantial prejudice required)
State v. Colwell, 994 P.2d 177 (Utah 2000) (improper statements in closing require reversal if harmful)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain error test and harm required for reversal)
State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah 1989) (Rule 608(a) admissibility and credibility testimony limits)
State v. Stefaniak, 900 P.2d 1094 (Utah 1995) (bolstering of credibility and harmless error evaluation)
State v. Iorg, 801 P.2d 938 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (evaluating harmless error and credibility-related testimony)
State v. Vargas, 2001 UT 5 (Utah 2001) (confrontation and cross-examination considerations; strategic decisions)