State v. Martinez, 2021 UT App 11

Background

Cesar R. Martinez was convicted by a jury of one count of rape of a child and three counts of sodomy on a child based primarily on the testimony of his then‑5‑year‑old daughter (Victim), family witnesses, a CJC recorded interview, and a medical exam.
Victim disclosed repeated sexual acts by Martinez and said he showed her sexual images on his tablet; a video of the Children’s Justice Center (CJC) interview was played for the jury; the interviewer did not testify at trial.
Jury deliberations became difficult; counsel located a Model Utah Jury Instruction (MUJI) deadlock instruction (Instruction 14) which was provided to the jury after an in‑chambers conference that was not recorded; the record later contained gaps about how/when the instruction was delivered.
Post‑trial Martinez (with new counsel) sought reconstruction of the record under Utah R. App. P. 11; an evidentiary hearing occurred nearly two years later, but participants had fuzzy memories and trial counsel did not assert a case‑specific coercion objection at trial.
On appeal Martinez raised three claims: (1) inability to reconstruct the deadlock‑instruction record denied due process and appeal rights (coercion‑under‑the‑circumstances claim); (2) district court erred under Utah R. Crim. P. 15.5 by admitting the CJC interview without required findings; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely object to testimony that Martinez showed Victim pornography.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found preservation problems and no sufficient prejudice—although it condemned the district court’s failure to record in‑chambers proceedings, Martinez failed to preserve the specific coercion claim and did not show that Rule 15.5 error or counsel’s alleged failures were prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Martinez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1) Deadlock instruction/record reconstruction: whether gaps in the record surrounding Instruction 14 deny due process and preclude appellate review of coercion under the circumstances	Failure to preserve and reconstruct the jury‑instruction record deprived Martinez of appellate review and a new trial because the instruction may have been coercive under the case circumstances	The record gaps do not prejudice Martinez because he did not preserve a coercion‑under‑the‑circumstances objection at trial; general objection to any deadlock instruction was insufficient	Court: Although failing to record in‑chambers discussion was error, Martinez did not preserve the specific coercion claim and cannot show prejudice; no reversal
2) Admission of CJC interview under Utah R. Crim. P. 15.5	Court admitted the recorded interview without making required findings about interviewer availability and reliability; this violated Rule 15.5 and requires relief	State concedes courts generally should make Rule 15.5 findings but contends Martinez did not preserve the issue and cannot show it likely would have excluded the recording or changed the outcome	Court: Unpreserved; reviewing for plain error/ineffective assistance, Martinez failed to show reasonable probability the recording would have been excluded or changed verdict—no relief
3) Admission of testimony that Martinez showed Victim pornography (Rule 404(b)/other‑acts) and counsel’s failure to timely object	Evidence of showing pornography was improper other‑acts evidence and prejudicial; trial counsel was ineffective for not timely or specifically objecting	The references to pornography were limited, largely unproven, and dwarfed by direct testimony about charged sexual acts; exclusion would not likely have changed the verdict	Court: Ineffective‑assistance claim fails for lack of prejudice; no reasonable probability of a different outcome

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bess, 473 P.3d 157 (Utah 2019) (approving use of deadlock instructions so long as they are not coercive)
State v. Ginter, 300 P.3d 1278 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (distinguishing coercion per se from coercion under the specific circumstances)
State v. Dalton, 331 P.3d 1110 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (preservation requirements for deadlock‑instruction challenges)
State v. Burnside, 387 P.3d 570 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (trial courts must record proceedings, including in‑chambers conferences)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (preservation rule and exceptions explained)
State v. Menzies, 845 P.2d 220 (Utah 1992) (incomplete record requires showing missing portions affect preserved issues)
State v. Russell, 917 P.2d 557 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (remand for incomplete record only when record inadequate to review specific preserved claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896) (federal precedent approving use of supplemental charges to assist deadlocked juries)