State v. Mendoza, 496 P.3d 275

Police responded to 911 reports of a violent assault; they found a young woman and a young man at Mendoza’s residence; the woman ran into the house.
Mendoza and his son yelled and used profanity at officers from the porch; the son was arrested and Mendoza repeatedly told officers to get off his property and slammed the door when an officer approached.
For about ten minutes officers were unable to obtain information about the alleged victim’s condition; the woman ultimately exited the house after Mendoza’s wife called Mendoza by phone.
Mendoza was arrested and charged with obstruction of justice under Utah Code § 76-8-306, which lists alternative prohibited acts (a)–(j) as the statute’s second element.
At trial the parties submitted and the court gave a jury instruction that listed some statutory alternatives but did not require juror unanimity as to which specific alternative Mendoza committed; the jury returned a general verdict of guilty.
On appeal Mendoza argued counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a unanimity instruction or a special verdict form; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Mendoza's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to request a unanimity instruction or a special verdict form constituted ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel was deficient for not requesting an instruction or special verdict to require jurors to unanimously identify which statutory alternative Mendoza committed; absence of such unanimity instruction prejudiced the verdict	Trial strategy and the given instruction were adequate; no reasonable probability of a different outcome or counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable	Court held counsel’s omission was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial; reversed and remanded for new trial with direction to give a unanimity instruction or special verdict form

Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020) (Sixth Amendment jury-unanimity requirement applies to state criminal trials)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Alires, 455 P.3d 636 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (distinguishes alternative actus reus elements from alternative factual theories; jury must unanimously agree on which alternative element was committed)
State v. Hummel, 393 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (statutory examples of means to commit a single crime are alternative factual theories, not separate elements)
State v. Saunders, 992 P.2d 951 (Utah 1999) (jury unanimity requires agreement on each count of each distinct crime)
State v. Rasabout, 356 P.3d 1258 (Utah 2015) (unit of prosecution can be discrete acts; guides analysis of statutory units of prosecution)
State v. Scott, 462 P.3d 350 (Utah 2020) (applies ineffective-assistance legal standards in Utah)