State v. Marchet, 287 P.3d 490

Marchet was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault, first degree felonies.
He appeals alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, erroneous admission of Rule 404(b) evidence, and exclusion of exculpatory out-of-court statements from a pretext call.
Utah appellate review applies Strickland’s two-prong test for ineffective assistance on direct appeal.
Nurse Fuller testified as an expert; Exhibit 17 (the report) and its use were central to several claims.
Rule 404(b) evidence from P.C. and S.W. was admitted to show intent, lack of consent, or modus operandi; the court found it permissible.
The pretext call was excluded as inadmissible under Rule 803(3); preservation and Confrontation Clause issues limited the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance claim viability	Marchet contends counsel’s performance was deficient in multiple respects.	Marchet argues trial counsel failed to object appropriately and shouldn’t have supported weak objections.	No deficient performance; trial strategy reasonable; no prejudice.
Rule 404(b) admission	P.C.’s testimony should be excluded as dissimilar and not probative of intent or lack of consent.	Testimony is sufficiently similar and probative to show pattern/motive/absence of consent.	Admissible; court properly weighed probative value against prejudice.
Exhibit 17 and related testimony	Exhibit 17 is mischaracterized; Fuller’s use of it as basis for expert opinion was improper.	Exhibit 17 was appropriately admitted as part of expert testimony and cross-examination clarified basis.	No reversible error; trial court correctly admitted/relied on Exhibit 17 in context.
Pretext call under Rule 803(3) and Confrontation	Statements from the pretext call show state of mind and should be admitted.	Call evidence is hearsay and not admissible under 803(3); preservation issue.
Evidence excluded; no Confrontation Clause violation; issue not preserved for review.

State v. Bair, 275 P.3d 1050 (Utah 2012) (ineffective assistance on direct appeal requires law-of-the-case showing)
Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81 (Utah 2006) (ineffective assistance claims decided on record on appeal)
State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah 2000) (strong presumption of trial strategy; objective standard of reasonableness)
State v. Honie, 57 P.3d 977 (Utah 2002) (briefing requirements for appellate contention)
State v. Jaeger, 973 P.2d 404 (Utah 1999) (medical records not sought for truth admissible as nonhearsay)
State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221 (Utah 1989) (803(3) present-sense admissibility for state of mind)
Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1933) (distinction between forward-looking intent and backward-looking memory)
State v. George, 189 P.3d 1284 (Utah 2008) (Confrontation Clause considerations for testimonial evidence)
Marchet I, 2009 UT App 262 (Utah 2009) (three-step Rule 404(b) admissibility framework)
Marchet II, 2012 UT App 197 (Utah 2012) (addressing precedent and preservation issues)
State v. Tenorio, 2007 UT App 92 (Utah 2007) (precedent departure considerations)
Kelley v. State, 2000 UT 41 (Utah 2000) (ineffective assistance requires showing of futile objections)