State v. Moore
2012 UT 62
| Utah | 2012Background
- Arvin Moore was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a child (1st-degree) and dealing in material harmful to a minor (2nd-degree).
- Moore appealed, claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating or exploiting discrepancies in the victim LB’s timing statements (2002 vs 2003).
- The Utah Court of Appeals granted a new trial on both charges; the State sought certiorari only on the harmful materials conviction and conceded ineffectiveness for the sexual abuse charge.
- LB testified to abuse years earlier; he described the incident in terms that could place it in 2002, with other statements indicating 2003; police found pornographic material matching LB’s description.
- The defense presented an alibi-like case with Moore’s sisters testifying mother died in August 2002 and that the house’s layout (bedroom, lack of TV) supported their account; the jury convicted on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's failure to press timing discrepancies prejudiced the harmful materials conviction | Moore | Moore | Yes; prejudice shown, remand for new trial |
| Whether the state could amend the information to resolve the timing discrepancy | Moore | State | Amendment not permitted to salvage the case; would prejudice substantial rights |
| Whether time discrepancy became an element or effectively tainted both offenses | Moore | State | Discrepancy affected both offenses; not separable in time |
| What standard applies to prejudice in ineffective assistance claims and result if no viable alternative defense is shown | Moore | State | Prejudice requires a reasonable probability of different outcome; there is such probability here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fulton, 742 P.2d 1208 (Utah 1987) (variance and continuance considerations in changing positions)
- State v. Taylor, 116 P.3d 360 (Utah 2005) (continuance and notice requirements; prejudice analysis)
- State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, 253 P.3d 1082 (Utah 2011) (prejudice standard in ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (amplified prejudice standard for Strickland review; substantial probability required)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Archuleta v. Galetka, 267 P.3d 232 (Utah 2011) (scope of variance and trial strategy considerations)
- State v. Tyler, 850 P.2d 1250 (Utah 1993) (ineffective assistance and prejudice assessment)