State v. MacNeill, 380 P.3d 60

Background

Victim (adult daughter) lived in family home after her mother’s April 2007 death to help care for younger siblings; she and defendant Martin MacNeill slept in the master bedroom. On May 23, 2007, Victim woke to MacNeill touching her buttocks under her underwear and kissing/licking her hand; she slapped him away and he apologized claiming he thought she was his wife.
Victim told her sister the next day; MacNeill admitted touching her and said he was glad it was her and not a younger child. Victim initially stayed to protect siblings, later was removed from the home by police; she feared reporting the abuse would cost her access to siblings.
Victim reported the abuse to police on September 1, 2007; a recorded interview on September 11, 2007 was later inadvertently erased by the State (a written narrative had been provided earlier). The State charged MacNeill with forcible sexual abuse and witness tampering; the witness tampering count was later dismissed and the case was briefly dismissed without prejudice in 2008 and refiled in 2009.
While this prosecution was pending, MacNeill was tried and convicted of his wife’s murder in November 2013. He moved for change of venue in the sexual-abuse case citing publicity; the trial court denied the motion. Victim repeatedly testified that she believed MacNeill killed her mother; defense counsel did not object and used that belief to argue a fabrication motive.
MacNeill raised motions challenging speedy trial and due process (including destruction of the recorded interview); interlocutory appeals addressed some claims (2012 UT App 263). After competency proceedings and scheduling accommodations, the forcible sexual abuse trial proceeded in July 2014 and the jury convicted MacNeill of forcible sexual abuse.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Change of venue	State: venue denial proper; jurors were impartial	MacNeill: pervasive publicity made impartial jury impossible	Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion; MacNeill passed jury for cause and showed no actual juror bias
Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: counsel’s choices were tactical and reasonable	MacNeill: counsel should have objected to Victim’s testimony that he killed her mother	Court: No ineffective assistance—counsel reasonably used the testimony to attack Victim’s credibility
Speedy trial	State: prior interlocutory ruling stands; delays justified or not prejudicial	MacNeill: delays violated Sixth Amendment speedy trial right; seeks reconsideration	Court: Claim barred by law-of-the-case/mandate from earlier appeal and inadequately briefed; affirmed
Due process — destroyed recording	State: provided written narrative; destruction inadvertent	MacNeill: loss of the recording violated due process	Court: Claim inadequately briefed and not analyzed under governing test; rejected

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cayer, 814 P.2d 604 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (trial court’s venue decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239 (Utah 1988) (pretrial publicity alone insufficient; focus is actual bias of empaneled jurors)
Widdison v. State, 28 P.3d 1278 (Utah 2001) (passing a jury for cause constitutes acknowledgment of juror impartiality)
Butterfield v. Sevier Valley Hosp., 246 P.3d 120 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (James factors predictability vs. actual juror impartiality distinction)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Larrabee, 321 P.3d 1136 (Utah 2013) (counsel’s failure to object to evidence previously excluded can be deficient strategy)
State v. James, 767 P.2d 549 (Utah 1989) (factors for assessing pretrial publicity and community effects on jury selection)
State v. Tiedemann, 162 P.3d 1106 (Utah 2007) (test for due process claims based on destruction of evidence)
State v. MacNeill, 286 P.3d 1278 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (prior interlocutory appeal resolving speedy-trial and due-process contentions)