State v. Rasabout and Kaykeo, 299 P.3d 625

Defendants Rasabout and Kaykeo were convicted after a jury trial of one count each of possession of alcohol by a minor and twelve counts of discharge of a firearm from a vehicle; the twelve discharge counts were merged into one by the trial court.
The State challenged the merger of the twelve discharge counts; Kaykeo cross-appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate alibi witnesses.
The trial court merged the twelve discharge counts into a single count for each defendant based on the theory of a single criminal episode, which the Court analyzes.
Kaykeo presented declarations from witnesses and his counsel countered with an affidavit; the trial court found the defense declarations not credible and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim.
The court concludes that the unit of prosecution under the firearm discharge statute is each discrete shot and reverses the merger order; Kaykeo’s ineffective-assistance claim fails on the record presented, and the conviction and merger are reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What is the proper unit of prosecution for discharging a firearm from a vehicle under Utah law?	State argues one shot equals one offense.	Rasabout and Kaykeo contend multiple shots may be a single offense.	Each shot is a separate offense; merger was error.
Did Kaykeo receive ineffective assistance of counsel for not investigating alibi witnesses?	State contends no ineffective assistance.	Kaykeo argues counsel failed to investigate and obtain dispatch logs.	Kaykeo failed to show deficient performance or prejudice; cross-appeal denied on this point.

State v. Morrison, 31 P.3d 547 (Utah 2001) (multiplicity analysis; unit of prosecution depends on statute text)
State v. Crosby, 927 P.2d 638 (Utah 1996) (single-intent analysis for determining separate offenses under a single episode)
State v. James, 631 P.2d 854 (Utah 1981) (statutory interpretation governs whether offenses arise from a single episode)
State v. Barker, 624 P.2d 694 (Utah 1981) (single larceny doctrine context; limits aggregation of theft offenses)
State v. Lee, 128 P.3d 1179 (Utah 2006) (multiplicity and merger principles in Utah)