State v. King
2012 UT App 203
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- King was convicted of aggravated kidnapping (domestic violence) and aggravated assault (domestic violence) after a jury trial.
- Victim, who had long‑standing mental health issues and substance abuse history, testified to being held and threatened by King, including being bound with duct tape and threatened with a knife.
- King’s associate Jackie testified inconsistently, and the State introduced Jackie’s prior statements from police interviews to impeach her credibility.
- King challenged trial counsel’s effectiveness, arguing for a mental health expert and discovery of Victim’s mental health records, and objected to hearsay statements from Jackie’s first interview.
- The appellate court remanded discussions on Rule 23B issues and ultimately affirmed the conviction, holding that trial counsel’s conduct was not ineffective under Strickland and that the challenged evidence did not prejudice the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 23B remand and presumed deficiency | King seeks remand to develop Rule 23B facts showing deficiency | The 23B request is cumulative and unlikely to change outcome | Remand denied; no prejudicial deficiency |
| Failure to obtain mental health expert | Expert would aid in showing Victim’s impairments | Not required; existing evidence suffices | Not deficient; even if, not prejudicial |
| Failure to seek Victim's mental health records | Records contain exculpatory evidence | Discovery would be futile; records not exculpatory | Not prejudicial; records would be cumulative |
| Admission of Jackie’s first‑interview statements | Statements are hearsay and improper | Many statements are admissible as inconsistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1) | Some statements admissible; no prejudice from admission |
| Admission of Jackie’s second‑interview statements | Second interview evidence is improper | Trial strategy to challenge police interrogation | Not prejudicial; within trial strategy; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hales, 2011 UT 14 (Utah 2011) (components of ineffective assistance standards applied)
- State v. C.D.L., 2011 UT App 55 (Utah App. 2011) (defendant’s claim requires showing deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Worthen, 2009 UT 79 (Utah 2009) (stringent test for discovery of mental health records)
- State v. Kelley, 2000 UT 41 (Utah 2000) (failure to raise futile objections not ineffective assistance)
- Archuleta v. Galetka, 2011 UT 73 (Utah 2011) (defense strategy reasonable under Strickland)
- Lenkart, 2011 UT 27 (Utah 2011) (counsel acts within wide range of reasonable assistance)
- State v. Pliego, 1999 UT 8 (Utah 1999) (record supplementation limitations on adding omitted material)
- State v. Whittle, 1999 UT 96 (Utah 1999) (inconsistent statements can be admissible under 801(d)(1)(A))
- State v. Clopten, 2009 UT 84 (Utah 2009) (eyewitness expert testimony not required in every case)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)