State v. Peterson, 462 P.3d 421

Peterson and his wife (Wife) were separated; they went to a recording studio where both drank despite Wife being on probation.
After leaving the studio Peterson struck Wife in the head multiple times; when she exited a slow-moving car at an overpass he threatened and physically pushed her back into the car.
Over an hours-long drive Peterson repeatedly beat Wife; she attempted to jump from the car on the freeway and he grabbed her to hold her in the vehicle.
At about 3:00 a.m. Peterson forced Wife out of the car at a park and made her clean blood at a water fountain; later he was seen punching the back seat and Wife scrambled to an arriving officer screaming for help.
Wife sustained severe injuries (shattered teeth, skull and nasal fractures, hearing loss, broken ribs, concussion). Peterson was charged with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault (serious bodily injury), mayhem, and failure to stop; jury convicted on kidnapping, assault, and failure to stop.
Peterson moved for directed verdict on kidnapping (denied) and post-trial sought merger of convictions (denied); on appeal he challenged sufficiency for kidnapping and alleged ineffective assistance for failing to move to merge under the statutory merger rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated kidnapping (detention "against the will")	State: Wife manifested lack of consent by exiting the car, attempting to escape, pleading, and being forced back by threats and physical force	Peterson: Wife willingly entered and re-entered car, he restrained her only to keep her from harming herself, so not "against the will"	Court: Affirmed—ample evidence (verbal protests, physical resistance, threats, forced re-entry, attempts to flee) supported jury finding detention was against Wife's will
Ineffective assistance re: failure to move to merge aggravated assault into aggravated kidnapping under the statute	State: Trial counsel reasonably pursued common-law merger and decline to press futile statutory merger motion	Peterson: Counsel was ineffective for not arguing statutory merger under §76‑1‑402	Court: Affirmed—counsel not deficient because statutory merger would have been futile; convictions rested on materially different acts so merger inappropriate

State v. Gonzalez, 345 P.3d 1168 (Utah 2015) (standard for reviewing directed verdict/sufficiency challenges)
State v. Couch, 635 P.2d 89 (Utah 1981) (verbal objections and resistance support finding detention was against victim's will)
State v. Kirby, 382 P.3d 644 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (resistance and defendant's prior threats relevant to unlawful detention)
State v. Finlayson, 994 P.2d 1243 (Utah 2000) (common-law merger test on kidnapping—detention must have independent significance)
State v. Wilder, 420 P.3d 1064 (Utah 2018) (renounced Finlayson common-law merger test)
State v. Garrido, 314 P.3d 1014 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (statutory merger: convictions supported by materially different acts do not merge)
State v. Farnworth, 414 P.3d 1053 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (counsel not deficient for declining futile merger motion where acts differed)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)