State v. Marchet, 330 P.3d 138

In October 2003 S.W. left a club with Marchet, who then forced sexual contact in a dark parking area; S.W. resisted, later reported the assault, and a forensic nurse observed vaginal redness under magnification.
The State charged Marchet with rape and moved to admit testimony from two other women (A.H. and P.C.) about similar prior sexual assaults; the court admitted that testimony under Utah R. Evid. 404(b).
Defense counsel sought to introduce, during cross-examination, the forensic report reference that S.W. had sexual intercourse with another man within ~72 hours; the court redacted that information under Utah R. Evid. 412 and counsel did not pursue its admission at trial after consulting a defense expert.
Marchet testified he had consensual sex with S.W.; defense expert opined the observed redness was not indicative of nonconsensual sex.
The jury convicted Marchet; he moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance for mishandling the rule 412 evidence and challenging admission of the prior-bad-acts testimony; the district court denied the motion and Marchet appealed.

Issue	Marchet's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to timely discover/move to admit rule 412(b) evidence and then abandoning its admission	Counsel’s failure to discover prior-sex reference and decision not to admit it deprived Marchet of meaningful evidence that could explain S.W.’s injury	Any error was not prejudicial because the injury evidence was minor and other strong proof supported conviction	No ineffective assistance; no reasonable probability of a different outcome absent counsel’s errors
Admissibility of prior bad acts (A.H. and P.C.) under Utah R. Evid. 404(b)	Testimony was improperly admitted and was overly prejudicial / not sufficiently similar to show modus operandi	Evidence was offered for non-character purposes (intent, plan, lack of consent), was relevant, and probative value outweighed prejudice	Admission was within the court’s discretion and not reversible error

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 (Utah 1990) (standard of review when district court has addressed ineffective-assistance claim)
State v. Eyre, 179 P.3d 792 (Utah 2008) (discusses deficient performance standard and prejudice analysis)
State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 678 (Utah 2012) (guidance on admitting prior-bad-acts evidence for intent and common scheme)
State v. Lenkart, 262 P.3d 1 (Utah 2011) (consider totality of evidence when assessing prejudice from counsel error)
State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291 (Utah 1988) (enumerates factors for weighing probative value versus prejudice for 404(b) evidence)