State v. Ringstad
2018 UT App 66
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Jeffrey Ringstad lived with his wife (Mother) and her two minor daughters (Victim and Sister); Victim later alleged sexual abuse by Defendant from 2011–2013.
- Victim testified in detail about multiple incidents including digital, oral, and penile contact and use of a lubricant; Defendant gave a videotaped statement admitting to "inappropriate touching" and that he "touched [her] private areas with my hands and with my privates."
- Sister separately alleged approximately thirty rapes by Defendant; her testimony was admitted without a Rule 404(b) objection and was used by defense counsel as part of a strategy to portray both girls’ claims as fabricated.
- Trial evidence included Victim’s detailed testimony, Defendant’s videotaped interview, pediatric exams showing no trauma, and conflicting testimony about timing and disclosures.
- Defendant was convicted on all counts and appealed, raising (1) admission of uncharged-acts evidence (Sister), (2) prosecutorial misconduct (religion, facts not in evidence, personal opinion), and (3) cumulative error; he also argued ineffective assistance for failure to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Sister’s testimony (other acts/Rule 404(b)) | State: Evidence admissible / reciprocal; defense used it in strategy | Ringstad: Uncharged violent-rape allegations were prejudicial and should have been excluded | Trial counsel strategically stipulated to admission and used testimony to argue fabrication; no ineffective assistance and no plain error |
| Prosecutor’s alleged improper factual statements (mischaracterizing videotape) | State: Counsel may argue reasonable inferences from evidence | Ringstad: Prosecutor misstated words ("penis" v. "privates") and argued facts not in evidence | Court: Inference was reasonable and reflected the only plausible meaning; objection would be futile; no error |
| Prosecutor’s religious references and personal opinion | State: Remarks either fair reply or comment on evidence/counsel’s statement; not an improper call to religion | Ringstad: Prosecutor injected religious issues, vouched personally, disparaged Defendant | Court: Religious references were factual/contextual (why disclosure occurred) or fair reply to defense; one brief personal-opinion remark was improper but harmless given strong evidence; no plain error or ineffective assistance |
| Cumulative error / ineffective assistance for failure to object | State: No reversible errors or prejudice to undermine verdict | Ringstad: Multiple unpreserved errors cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial | Court: Considering the totality (confession, Victim’s testimony, defense strategy), cumulative-error claim rejected; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (cumulative-error standard)
- State v. Ott, 247 P.3d 344 (Utah 2010) (deference to reasonable trial strategy in ineffective assistance claims)
- State v. Bond, 361 P.3d 104 (Utah 2015) (plain-error framework for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Hummel, 393 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (clarifies plain-error focus on trial court’s obvious error)
- State v. Kozlov, 276 P.3d 1207 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (factors for assessing prejudice from improper prosecutorial remarks)