State v. Mottaghian, 2022 UT App 8

Background

Defendant placed a Craigslist ad seeking women for “paid anatomy research” to develop “medical devices,” specifying vaginal and anal measurements and offering $200; he represented the work as medical research and that a doctor/engineer would perform procedures.
Two women (Kelsey and Caroline) responded, disrobed per instructions, and were subjected to multiple vaginal and anal insertions with metal rods, as well as repeated digital stimulation of the clitoris; both later reported the incidents to police (Kelsey immediately; Caroline after detectives informed her defendant was not a doctor).
An undercover officer posed as a third volunteer; defendant began the intake and was about to start measurements when police interrupted and arrested him.
Defendant was charged with object rape, forcible sexual abuse, and attempted object rape (later amended); at trial he conceded the acts occurred but argued they were consensual; the jury convicted on multiple counts (some as lesser-included offenses).
On appeal defendant argued (1) insufficient evidence of nonconsent and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel (including failure to request a specific unanimity instruction, failure to obtain the State’s nonconsent theory earlier, and failing to renew a mistrial motion). The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mottaghian)	Held
Sufficiency: whether evidence proved nonconsent for Kelsey and Caroline	Evidence showed defendant misrepresented himself and the purpose (medical research/doctor) and engaged in deceptive conduct; under totality jury could find lack of consent	Victims knew measurements would include vaginal/anal probing, so they consented to the acts; State didn’t disprove consent beyond a reasonable doubt	Affirmed: jury could find lack of consent under totality and deceptive-health-professional theory; directed-verdict denial proper
Sufficiency: whether defendant took a "substantial step" toward attempted sexual battery (undercover officer)	Scheduling, explaining procedure, stating “Just me,” handing NDA, and beginning intake constituted tangible overt acts strongly corroborating intent	Actions were mere preparation; not a substantial step	Affirmed: facts constituted a substantial step toward commission; directed-verdict denial proper
Ineffective assistance: failure to request specific unanimity instruction	N/A (State relied on jury unanimity)	Counsel should have requested instruction ensuring jurors agreed on which specific acts supported each count	No prejudice: although instruction deficient, overwhelming uncontested pre-realization acts meant no reasonable probability of different result
Ineffective assistance: failure to elicit State’s nonconsent theory earlier & failure to renew mistrial after late text-message production	N/A	Counsel was surprised and deprived of preparation; counsel’s failures were prejudicial	Rejected: counsel’s actions were objectively reasonable (trial strategy) and defendant failed to show prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Barela, 349 P.3d 676 (Utah 2015) (consent is fact-intensive; statutory list not exhaustive)
State v. Hummel, 393 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (constitutional unanimity requires jurors concur on each distinct count)
State v. Arave, 268 P.3d 163 (Utah 2011) (substantial-step/attempt requires significant overt act beyond preparation)
State v. Alires, 455 P.3d 636 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (unanimity problem where many potential acts but few identically worded counts)
State v. Percival, 464 P.3d 1184 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (no prejudice from unanimity instruction omission where evidence showed defendant committed all possible acts)
State v. Case, 467 P.3d 893 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (similar to Percival; jurors would have picked the obvious items among many)
State v. Scott, 462 P.3d 350 (Utah 2020) (analysis of counsel performance judged by objective reasonableness)