State v. Nunez-Vazquez, 468 P.3d 585

Background

Victim and Defendant met while drinking heavily; Victim passed out on a couch and later awoke with his pants down and Defendant fondling him; Victim reported being raped and was examined by a sexual-assault nurse.
Police detained Defendant; Defendant made custodial statements admitting fondling and sex but saying he thought Victim consented and that Victim had identified as straight; Defendant also said he had a “thing for straight guys.”
State charged Defendant with forcible sodomy; trial court denied a pretrial Rule 412 motion to admit evidence of Victim’s prior sexual behavior, reserving the possibility to reopen if Victim “opened the door.”
At trial Victim denied flirting and insisted he would have known if he had consented; Defendant testified that he believed the encounter was consensual; jury convicted Defendant and court sentenced him to 5 years to life.
On appeal Defendant argued exclusion of Rule 412 evidence violated confrontation and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to proffer and renew the Rule 412 motion, for not obtaining broader interrogation-context testimony, for failing to exclude his own statements, and for not objecting to the nurse’s testimony; the court granted a Rule 23B remand, took testimony from proffered witnesses, and then affirmed the conviction.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of evidence of Victim’s prior sexual behavior under Utah R. Evid. 412 violated Defendant’s confrontation/right to present a defense	R. 412 bars this evidence unless the door is opened or exclusion would violate constitutional rights; Victim’s trial testimony did not open the door	Excluding testimony and witnesses about Victim’s past homosexual conduct deprived Defendant of the ability to impeach Victim and present a complete defense	Court: Exclusion did not violate the Sixth Amendment; evidence was not "essential" because Victim never expressly said he wouldn’t consent because he was straight and prior conduct is not probative of consent on a different occasion
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to submit a detailed proffer and failing to renew Rule 412 at trial	Even assuming deficient performance, Defendant cannot show prejudice because the court would have excluded the evidence	Counsel’s failures deprived the defense of critical impeachment and violated Strickland	Court: Even if deficient, no Strickland prejudice; remand hearing testimony would not have changed the ruling
Whether the court erred by refusing Defendant’s mistake-of-fact jury instruction on consent	The given instructions (intent/knowledge/recklessness; consent definitions) fairly and adequately covered the issues	Defendant entitled to specific mistake-of-fact wording to explain subjective+objective elements of mistake about consent	Court: No abuse of discretion; instructions read as whole covered mistake-of-fact theory and no prejudice
Whether counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to admit more interrogation-context evidence, (b) failing to exclude Defendant’s statements about Victim being straight, and (c) failing to object to nurse’s testimony about memory/trauma	Many objections would be futile or invited; defendant’s statements were highly probative of state of mind; nurse’s testimony did not opine on veracity	Counsel should have preserved/urged admission/exclusion to prevent prejudice	Court: No ineffective assistance — jury heard ample interrogation context; defendant’s admissions were probative and not unfairly prejudicial; nurse’s testimony was permissible and did not comment on credibility

Key Cases Cited

State v. Tarrats, 122 P.3d 581 (Utah 2005) (Rule 412 generally bars prior sexual conduct as probative of consent and can be excluded for prejudice)
State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (constitutional right to present a defense can override evidentiary rules when evidence is essential)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel—performance and prejudice)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation warnings rule)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (right to present a defense is not absolute)
State v. Johns, 615 P.2d 1260 (Utah 1980) (prior sexual conduct with others generally irrelevant to consent on separate occasion)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1998) (evidentiary rules may limit defense presentation absent constitutional necessity)