State v. Makaya, 476 P.3d 1025

Makaya drove his SUV around lowered crossing gates with flashing lights at a FrontRunner rail crossing, backing up ~115 feet, passing a concrete median, and proceeding the wrong way down a lane onto the tracks. The SUV was struck by an oncoming commuter train; Makaya’s pregnant girlfriend was killed and the infant survived with likely long-term injuries.
Video and an accident-reconstruction expert showed Makaya did not brake or steer away, reached ~27–29 mph on impact, and likely floored the gas after clearing the median; there was still distance to stop before the tracks.
UTA records showed the crossing warnings had been activated for under 17 seconds before the train reached the roadway (the system is programmed to begin 27 seconds out), and the gates had been raised for over two minutes prior to descending for the FrontRunner train.
Makaya told police he and his girlfriend waited ‘a couple minutes,’ then, at his girlfriend’s urging, went around the gates; he also claimed possible limited visibility and that he thought the signaling had malfunctioned.
Charged with manslaughter, Makaya argued at trial he was only criminally negligent (lesser-included negligent homicide); the jury was instructed on both offenses and convicted him of manslaughter.
On appeal Makaya argued his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to move for a directed verdict of acquittal on manslaughter (preservation exception via ineffective-assistance claim).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving for a directed verdict on manslaughter	Makaya: counsel was deficient for not moving; evidence supported only negligent homicide, not reckless manslaughter	State: a directed-verdict motion would have been futile because the State presented sufficient evidence of recklessness	Court: counsel not ineffective; motion would have been futile because reasonable jurors could find Makaya acted recklessly; conviction affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective assistance test)
State v. Doyle, 437 P.3d 1266 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (directed-verdict sufficiency standard)
State v. Baer, 438 P.3d 979 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (failure to raise futile directed-verdict motion not deficient)
State v. Alzaga, 352 P.3d 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (futile motions/objections do not constitute ineffective assistance)
State v. Kelley, 1 P.3d 546 (Utah 2000) (same principle regarding futile objections)
State v. Torres, 427 P.3d 550 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (conflicting evidence of mens rea is for the jury to resolve)