State v. Morley, 452 P.3d 529

On Feb. 19, 2014, an eight‑month‑old boy in Morley’s in‑home daycare was found limp and later died; autopsy showed skull fracture, bilateral humerus fractures, brain swelling, and retinal hemorrhages; death ruled a homicide.
Investigators interviewed children and obtained a statement from another child implicating Morley’s three‑year‑old (Brother) as the assailant; later evidence supported that Morley’s daughter had damaged the changing table.
Police conducted an experiment using a weighted CPR doll placed on the cracked changing table and filmed Brother attempting to lift the doll; officers concluded Brother could not have caused the injuries.
At trial the State called five experts (medical examiner, ocular pathologist, child‑abuse pediatrician, pediatric neuroradiologist, and a biomechanical engineer). The engineer opined an adult grabbed and shook the infant and his head struck a firm object (the changing table).
Trial Counsel cross‑examined the experts, attacked the engineer’s qualifications and methods, and did not object to admission of the CPR‑doll photographs/video or the engineer’s testimony; the jury convicted Morley of child abuse homicide.
On appeal Morley argued she received ineffective assistance because counsel failed to object to the engineer’s testimony and to admission of the CPR‑doll depictions; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the biomechanical engineer’s testimony	Morley: engineer lacked medical qualifications, exceeded expertise, and was the only witness ‘‘absolutely linking’’ her to the injuries	State: multiple medical experts independently supported the State’s theory; any error was not prejudicial	Court: No prejudice—other expert testimony strongly supported the verdict, so outcome wouldn’t likely differ absent engineer testimony
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to admission of photographs/video of CPR doll on changing table and Brother’s lifting attempt	Morley: exhibits were misleading, irrelevant, and more prejudicial than probative	State: counsel reasonably used the exhibits tactically to undermine the State’s demonstration and highlight weaknesses	Court: No deficient performance—trial counsel had a reasonable tactical basis to use the exhibits against the State

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Menzies v. State, 2014 UT 40 (2014) (discussion of Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel in Utah context)
Vallejo v. State, 2019 UT 38 (2019) (prejudice inquiry considers totality of evidence and reasonable probability of different outcome)
Gregg v. State, 2012 UT 32 (2012) (factors for assessing prejudice from evidentiary errors)
Edgar v. State, 2017 UT App 54 (2017) (appellant must show reasonable probability verdict would differ absent excludable evidence)
Nelson v. State, 2015 UT 62 (2015) (courts defer to trial counsel’s tactical decisions unless no reasonable basis exists)