State v. Nunes, 476 P.3d 172

In 2013–2014 Ashten Nunes (then 17–18) had an on-and-off sexual relationship with a 14–15-year-old girl (Victim); a protective order barred contact but was repeatedly violated.
On December 6, 2014 Victim testified Nunes held her down and penetrated her vagina (she also described attempted anal penetration; the jury acquitted on forcible sodomy but convicted on rape).
Victim gave inconsistent accounts at various times (CJC interview, preliminary hearing, trial); she also sent affectionate messages to Nunes after the incident and delayed reporting until January 2015.
Physical evidence was limited: one bloodstain on a blanket matched Victim’s DNA and a healed cut to the hymen that could be consistent with rape or consensual sex.
Trial counsel did not object to three contested testimonial matters: Mother’s statement that Victim was “not faking,” Trial Counsel withdrew a hearsay objection to Victim’s statements repeated by her psychotherapist (Counselor), and counsel did not object to Detective’s testimony that Victim said “that she had been raped.”
Nunes appealed on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds; the Utah Court of Appeals assumed some objections may have been deficient but held Nunes failed to show prejudice and affirmed; Judge Orme dissented, arguing deficiency plus prejudice warranted a new trial.

Issue	Nunes' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Mother’s on-the-spot vouching (“Not at all, no”)	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to impermissible bolstering of Victim’s credibility	Even if counsel erred, Mother’s isolated, unsurprising comment (a mother believing her child) was harmless and unlikely to affect the jury	Assuming deficiency, no prejudice; admission was harmless and conviction affirmed
Counsel’s withdrawal of hearsay objection to Counselor repeating Victim’s statements	Counsel was ineffective for withdrawing a valid hearsay objection; Counselor’s testimony impermissibly admitted prior-consistent or hearsay evidence without limiting instruction and bolstered Victim	Even if the objection should have been sustained, Counselor’s testimony largely duplicated Victim’s own trial testimony (and may have fit an exception), so it did not materially change the evidentiary picture	Assuming deficiency, no prejudice: testimony was largely cumulative of Victim’s detailed testimony and did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome
Detective’s testimony that Victim said she “had been raped”	Counsel ineffective for not objecting to hearsay that bolstered Victim	The remark merely explained the reason for the interview and was not a statement on veracity; cumulative of Victim’s own testimony	Even assuming objectionable, no prejudice given Victim’s vivid trial testimony; conviction affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong standard—deficiency and prejudice)
Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (prior consistent statements admissible substantively only if made before motive to fabricate)
State v. Bujan, 190 P.3d 1255 (Utah 2008) (prior-consistent-statement rule and requirement of limiting instruction for rehabilitative use)
State v. Scott, 462 P.3d 350 (Utah 2020) (highly deferential review of counsel strategy; objective reasonableness standard)
State v. Cegers, 440 P.3d 924 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (discussion of impermissible bolstering and credibility testimony)
State v. Burnett, 427 P.3d 288 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (prejudice more likely where case hinges on victim credibility and bolstering occurred)