State v. McHugh, 250 P.3d 1006

McHugh was convicted of making a terroristic threat in Utah.
He appeals claiming Brady violations due to suppression of recordings favorable to him.
Record suggests Tammy Baker could have provided inconsistent statements; defense called Baker as witness.
State presented other witnesses who testified McHugh confessed to the bomb threat in independent conversations.
Phone records show the bomb-threat call originated from McHugh’s phone and he had possession at the time.
McHugh also contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain the recordings; the record is incomplete to evaluate this claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady suppression element	McHugh asserts suppressed favorable evidence.	McHugh argues the recordings could be favorable or impeaching.	McHugh fails to show the recordings were favorable or prejudicial.
Prejudice under Brady	Suppressed evidence prejudiced McHugh.	Other strong evidence supports guilt; prejudice not shown.	No Brady prejudice shown; due process not violated.
Ineffective assistance and record adequacy	Records of recordings are necessary to evaluate trial counsel’s effectiveness.	Failure to obtain recordings may amount to ineffective assistance.	Record inadequate to assess IAC; remand not pursued; presumption of effective counsel applied.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (due process requires disclosure of favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment)
Tillman v. State, 2005 UT 56 (Utah) (three elements for a Brady violation)
State v. Bisner, 37 P.3d 1073 (2001 UT) (awareness of favorable evidence after trial governs reversal)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice required)
State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah 2000) (remand under Rule 23B for inadequate record on IAC claims)