State v. Mason, 562 P.3d 1158

Bryce Mason attended an outdoor party in Piute County, Utah, and retrieved a gun from his car during a physical altercation among partygoers.
The gun discharged during the melee, injuring bystander Kolten in the foot; witnesses testified with differing perspectives, citing confusion, darkness, and intoxication at the scene.
Mason was charged and convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with serious bodily injury and appealed, challenging his conviction on ineffective assistance of counsel and other grounds.
Post-trial, Mason filed pro se and counseled motions alleging ineffective assistance due to trial counsel’s strategy and the failure to introduce certain evidence; successor counsel argued against renewing Mason's new trial motion.
On appeal, Mason raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance (including for failure to object at trial and during closing, and counsel’s handling of his post-trial motion), seeking both reversal and a Rule 23B remand for further factual development.

Issue	Mason's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Trial counsel did not object to gun-	Failure to object was deficient and unfairly prejudicial to Mason.	Questioning was relevant to justification/self-defense.	No prejudice; outcome unchanged.
at-party questioning.
Trial counsel did not object to	Prosecutor’s remark was improper, urged community-based verdict.	Counsel may strategically choose to not object.	Not deficient, was reasonable.
prosecutor’s closing argument.
Successor counsel failed to advocate	Counsel’s conduct violated loyalty or was ineffective under Strickland.	No indication of conflict or ulterior motive by counsel.	No conflict of interest; no prejudice.
for post-trial new trial motion.
Rule 23B remand for new evidence/video	New or enhanced evidence would likely have changed the outcome.	Evidence was cumulative, unreliable, or not outcome-determinative.	Remand denied; no prejudice shown.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel—deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Holland, 876 P.2d 357 (Utah 1994) (duty of loyalty in criminal representation and conflict-of-interest framework)
Taylor v. State, 2007 UT 12, 156 P.3d 739 (clarifies application of duty of loyalty as conflict of interest in criminal cases)
State v. Suhail, 2023 UT App 15, 525 P.3d 550 (recites Strickland ineffective assistance standard and application in Utah)