State v. Rosen, 484 P.3d 1225

In 2017 Rosen (in his 40s) met a 16-year-old (Victim) on an adult same-sex networking site; Victim misrepresented his age as 18+. They met at Victim’s apartment and engaged in kissing, mutual touching, and oral sex.
Victim’s father arrived unexpectedly, saw Rosen leaving from the balcony, obtained Rosen’s license plate, and police later arrested Rosen.
Rosen admitted some touching and claimed he believed Victim was 23; he was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old (felony) and with a related misdemeanor; convictions were returned and the convictions were merged.
Utah law allowed a reasonable-mistake-of-age defense when the defendant is 7–9 years older than the minor, but expressly barred that defense when the defendant is 10 or more years older than the minor.
Rosen, who was more than 10 years older than Victim, argued on appeal that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge the statutory scheme under the Utah Constitution’s uniform operation of laws provision.
The Court reviewed the ineffective-assistance claim under Strickland’s performance prong, applied rational-basis review to the statute, concluded a challenge would likely have failed, and affirmed.

Issue	Rosen's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the age-differentiated statutory scheme under Utah Const. art. I, § 24	Counsel was deficient for not arguing the scheme violates uniform operation of laws and thus deprived Rosen of a reasonable-mistake-of-age defense	Reasonable counsel could decline a constitutional challenge because age-based classifications are reviewed under rational basis and the statute likely survives; raising it would likely be futile	Counsel was not ineffective; a uniform-operation challenge likely would have failed under rational-basis review and forgoing it was reasonable; conviction affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
State v. Robinson, 254 P.3d 183 (sets three-step uniform operation of laws analysis)
State v. Angilau, 245 P.3d 745 (age-based classifications evaluated under rational-basis scrutiny)
State v. Kelley, 1 P.3d 546 (failure to raise futile objections is not ineffective assistance)
Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704 (upholding harsher treatment for greater age disparities in sexual-offense contexts)
People v. Cavallaro, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 139 (legislative rationale supports stricter penalties where large age gap suggests predatory potential)