State v. Lopez
438 P.3d 950
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Lopez and his girlfriend argued and physically fought after a wedding; Lopez admitted to a physical altercation and to having sex with her twice that night. Neighbor called police; girlfriend later reported rape and underwent a sexual assault exam documenting bruises and genital injury.
- Lopez testified at trial that the post-fight sex was consensual “make-up sex”; girlfriend testified she resisted and was raped (including digital penetration). Jury convicted Lopez of rape, one count of object rape, and assault; acquitted on the other object-rape count.
- On appeal Lopez alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) failing to object to jury instructions (rape and object rape), (2) failing to investigate girlfriend’s car accident (which Lopez argued could explain injuries), and (3) failing to retain a medical expert; he also argued cumulative error.
- The appellate court remanded under Utah R. App. P. 23B for evidentiary development; the district court held hearings and made findings about the accident date and other facts.
- The district court found the car accident occurred ten days after the assault exam (consistent with girlfriend’s testimony); trial counsel had reviewed the sexual-assault report, consulted a nurse practitioner informally, and stipulated limiting the State expert’s testimony rather than calling a defense expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lopez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Jury instructions (mens rea for consent) | Instructions were correct for rape; object-rape instruction omitted general mens rea for nonconsent but omission harmless | Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to both rape and object-rape instructions | Rape instruction proper; counsel not ineffective for failing to object. Object-rape instruction was erroneous but Lopez failed to show prejudice, so no relief. |
| 2. Failure to investigate car accident | Any impeachment about accident date would not likely change outcome given admissions of fight and other evidence | Counsel was ineffective for not investigating and producing records showing accident occurred before exam, undermining injury evidence and girlfriend credibility | No prejudice shown; failure to investigate did not create reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| 3. Failure to retain medical expert | Counsel’s decision to stipulate and not call an expert was reasonable trial strategy and would likely be redundant | Counsel was ineffective for not retaining a medical expert to rebut State’s medical testimony and link injuries to accident | Not objectively deficient; strategy supported by stipulation and overlap with State expert, so no IAC. |
| 4. Cumulative error | Only one error (instruction) identified; no cumulative prejudice | Cumulative effect of counsel’s errors denied fair trial | Cumulative-error doctrine not applicable because Lopez established only one error and no prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Barela, 349 P.3d 676 (Utah 2015) (jury instruction must apply mens rea to nonconsent)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (strategic decisions can be sound trial strategy for IAC analysis)
- State v. Arguelles, 921 P.2d 439 (Utah 1996) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- State v. King, 248 P.3d 984 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (cumulative-error framework)