State v. Newton, 437 P.3d 429

Victim met Newton at a party; later at ~3:00 a.m. they left together, went to a fast-food restaurant, then to a truck stop parking lot where Victim says Newton forcibly raped her, choked her, and threatened her with a gun; DNA and injuries corroborated Victim’s account.
Newton testified the intercourse was consensual and denied pulling the gun or removing it from a safe.
A jury convicted Newton of first‑degree aggravated sexual assault and third‑degree aggravated assault; he was acquitted of other charges.
After trial Newton obtained new counsel and moved to arrest judgment and for a new trial alleging (1) defective rape jury instruction and ineffective assistance for failing to object, (2) a Brady violation because the State did not forensically examine Victim’s cell phone, and (3) several other ineffective‑assistance claims.
The district court ordered a post‑trial forensic exam of the phone, which showed Victim had entered Newton’s name/number shortly after leaving the party and received unanswered calls/texts; the court found the phone evidence neither exculpatory nor material and denied the motion.
On appeal the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed: the rape instruction was legally correct (so counsel’s failure to object was not deficient), the State committed no Brady violation, and the phone contents were not material/exculpatory; other ineffective‑assistance claims were not addressed because Newton failed to challenge the district court’s factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Newton)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Jury instruction mens rea for rape / ineffective assistance	Instruction failed to make mens rea apply to Victim’s nonconsent; counsel ineffective for not objecting	Instruction properly stated elements; mens rea applies to the statute and to nonconsent	Court: Instruction correct and clear; counsel’s failure to object was not deficient; claim fails
Brady duty to forensically examine Victim’s phone	State had affirmative duty to search phone once police had it; failure was Brady violation	Prosecutor did not know contents; no duty to seek unknown evidence; defense sought phone pretrial but didn’t show good cause	Court: No Brady violation because prosecution and its agents did not know of exculpatory content; no duty to independently search unknown content
Materiality/exculpatory nature of phone evidence	Phone entries and missed calls would undermine Victim’s credibility and suggest consent	Phone data corroborated Victim (calls attempting contact) and merely showed prior contact; not reasonably likely to change verdict	Court: Phone contents not material/exculpatory; post‑trial exam unlikely to have affected verdict
Other ineffective assistance claims	Trial counsel failed to object to prejudicial testimony, investigate, prepare	District court held evidentiary hearings and made findings rejecting these claims	Court: Newton failed to challenge district court’s findings on appeal, so those claims not addressed further

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution’s duty to disclose favorable material evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor’s duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others acting for the government)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Barela, 349 P.3d 676 (Utah 2015) (jury instruction that couched mens rea only with intercourse was erroneous)
State v. Marchet, 219 P.3d 75 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (instruction treating mens rea as applying to entire rape offense upheld)