State v. Lucero, 2014 UT 15

Lucero was convicted of murder and two counts of child abuse in Utah for the death of her two-year-old son Alejandro (Alex).
Alex died from a fatal spinal injury likely caused by backward bending of the spine; Lucero initially claimed she was alone with Alex but later blamed her boyfriend Sergio Martinez.
Lucero, age 17 at the time, had a complex relationship with Martinez; her claim of who cared for Alex varied over time.
Prior to trial, the State sought to admit evidence of Alex’s prior spinal injury under Rule 404(b) to prove identity and related purposes; Lucero sought to admit evidence of a zoo altercation to show she would lie to protect Martinez.
The trial court admitted both 404(b) motions; at trial, an interrogation video was shown largely unredacted, and a stipulation regarding another child’s seizure history was read to the jury.
Lucero appeals on (i) the admissibility of the prior abuse evidence, (ii) ineffective assistance of counsel (including Battered Woman’s Syndrome considerations) and (iii) cumulative error; the court resolves these issues in favor of affirming the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior child abuse under Rule 404(b)	Lucero argues the court failed to scrupulously examine 104(b) and 403 analyses and misapplied 404(b).	Lucero contends prior acts were improper propensity evidence and not properly connected to her.	Court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible for identity/intent with harmless error.
Effectiveness of defense counsel	Lucero asserts counsel was ineffective for stipulating to seizure-history evidence, admitting the unredacted video, and not pursuing BWS.	Lucero asserts reasonable alternatives (including BWS) were ignored.	Counsel’s performance not deficient; strategy reasonable; 23B remand moot.
Cumulative error	Cumulative impact of admitted evidence and other errors denied fair trial.	No combination of errors undermines confidence in trial.	No cumulative error; convictions affirmed.
Rule 23B remand mootness	Remand for further evidence on ineffective assistance is still appropriate.	Remand unnecessary given other successful defenses.	Remand moot; vacated.

State v. Decorso, 993 P.2d 837 (Utah 1999) (establishes three-part test for 404(b) admissibility (relevance, proper purpose, 403 balance))
State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (clarifies conditional relevance and 104(b) analysis for 404(b))
State v. Killpack, 191 P.3d 17 (Utah 2008) (scrupulous examination standard for Rule 404(b) admission and Shickles guidance)
State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 6 P.3d 1120 (Utah 2000) (noncharacter purposes for 404(b) admissibility; identity/motive/intent guidance)
State v. Tanner, 675 P.2d 539 (Utah 1983) (BCS and expert testimony considerations in abuse cases)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (BCS evidence probative of intent; admissibility framework under 404(b))
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (establishes standard for conditional relevance and 104(b) analysis)
State v. Virgin, 137 P.3d 787 (Utah 2006) (limited deference to magistrate bindover decisions in 404(b) context)
State v. Widdison, 28 P.3d 1278 (Utah 2001) (scrupulous examination standard reference)