State v. Ramos, 2018 UT App 161

Late-night altercation after a movie: Ramos and an accomplice approached a vehicle; a struggle ensued and Victim was stabbed multiple times and died from a fatal chest wound.
Witnesses (Friend, an off‑duty paramedic, and an apartment watcher) observed or heard Victim pleading "Please don't kill me. I have kids." Victim had nine sharp‑force wounds; one defensive wound was found on his hand.
Ramos fled, was later arrested at a motel; police found bloodstained clothing in his trash and Victim’s blood on those garments; Ramos’s fingerprint was on Friend’s car. No knife was recovered.
Ramos gave multiple, inconsistent statements to police claiming self‑defense (including that Victim choked him); medical evidence conflicted on whether Ramos had been strangled.
Trial: jury instructed on perfect and imperfect self‑defense and on imperfect‑self‑defense manslaughter. One instruction (Instruction 34) misstated the State’s burden by implying the defendant had to prove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt; other instructions (including Instruction 48) correctly allocated the burden to the State.
Jury convicted Ramos of murder. On appeal he argued ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to the flawed manslaughter instruction and to testimony mentioning a photo of Victim’s children, and he raised cumulative‑error and plain‑error contentions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ramos)	Held
1) Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to the flawed imperfect‑self‑defense manslaughter instruction?	Counsel’s waiver/invitation to the instruction precludes plain‑error; even if error occurred, the State’s evidence overwhelmingly disproved the defense so no prejudice.	Trial counsel was deficient for failing to object; the erroneous instruction shifted burden and prejudiced Ramos.	Court held no ineffective assistance: Ramos invited the instruction; and on prejudice analysis the evidence against him was overwhelming so no reasonable probability of a different outcome.
2) Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to testimony that Victim’s phone showed a photo of his children?	The testimony was relevant or cumulative and reasonable trial strategy supported not objecting; no deficient performance.	Counsel should have objected as improper/unduly prejudicial victim‑impact style evidence.	Held counsel was not ineffective; counsel could reasonably allow the testimony for relevance and because it was cumulative.
3) Do cumulative errors require reversal?	—	Multiple trial errors together undermined confidence in verdict.	Held cumulative‑error doctrine inapplicable because no prejudicial errors were found.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Montoya, 84 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2004) (prejudice/Strickland application cited)
State v. Hutchings, 285 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2012) (harmlessness of erroneous instruction assessed under totality of evidence)
State v. Lee, 318 P.3d 1164 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (affirmative‑defense burden and instruction principles)
State v. Garcia, 370 P.3d 970 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (similar erroneous instruction; overwhelming evidence of guilt defeated prejudice claim)
State v. Galindo, 402 P.3d 8 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (procedural guidance on ineff. assistance review)