State v. Lenkart
2011 UT 27
| Utah | 2011Background
- Lenkart was charged with rape, forcible sodomy, and two counts of forcible sexual abuse, and was convicted on all counts with concurrent sentences.
- After sentencing, Lenkart moved for arrest of judgment and a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Lenkart alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and present exculpatory physical evidence from the Code R kit.
- Post-trial analysis of the Code R kit by Susan Bryner Brown suggested the evidence was more consistent with consensual activity and lacked salivary amylase, but this was not presented at trial.
- New counsel later obtained post-trial testing showing exculpatory results; the State argued this was a strategic decision, which this court rejected.
- The Utah Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, and also remanded consideration of Lenkart’s motion to access the victim’s mental health records under Worthen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance from failure to investigate physical evidence | Lenkart claims counsel failed to investigate/present exculpatory physical evidence. | Lenkart asserts prejudice from absence of exculpatory testing and expert testimony. | Counsel deficient; prejudice established; reverse and remand for new trial. |
| Access to victim's mental health records on remand | Lenkart seeks in camera review under 506(d)(1) to obtain exculpatory records. | State should consider merits under Worthen after new trial. | Remand to apply Worthen framework for merits of 506(d)(1) issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice prong for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Hales, 2007 UT 14, 152 P.3d 321 (Utah Supreme Court 2007) (investigation and reasonable conduct standard for counsel)
- State v. Worthen, 2009 UT 79, 222 P.3d 1144 (Utah Supreme Court 2009) (three-step Worthen framework for 506(d)(1) privilege balancing)
- State v. Blake, 2002 UT 113, 63 P.3d 56 (Utah Supreme Court 2002) (reasonable certainty standard for admissibility of records)
- State v. Cardall, 1999 UT 51, 982 P.2d 79 (Utah Supreme Court 1999) (reasonable certainty/test for exculpatory evidence relevance)