521 P.3d 526
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- In April 2019 a man (Victim) was found beaten to death; Victim’s finger was severed. Police learned Victim had last been with Brandon Samples and Samples’s girlfriend (Girlfriend).
- Girlfriend later told officers that Samples killed Victim, cut off the finger, and described post‑murder efforts to clean up and dispose of evidence; she also testified similarly at trial but had given inconsistent earlier statements.
- Medical Examiner testified that Victim had numerous pre‑mortem bruises and fractures and opined bruising requires circulation (suggesting the beating occurred before death); she thought bruises were likely obtained at the same time, and that the missing finger was probably amputated after death.
- At trial the State introduced Girlfriend’s in‑court testimony and corroborating physical evidence (blood on a broken bat, knife, cigarette butt), witness testimony (Brother, an inmate who said Samples confessed), and lab findings; Samples admitted to striking Victim and to cutting off the finger but claimed some injuries occurred post‑mortem and blamed Girlfriend for the killing.
- Defense counsel did not seek a midtrial continuance to locate a rebuttal medical expert, did not object to two officers repeating portions of Girlfriend’s out‑of‑court statements, and did not object to a detective’s equivocal opinion that Girlfriend’s cast made it unlikely she caused all injuries.
- Samples was convicted of murder, desecration of a body, and obstructing justice. On appeal he raised (1) a Rule 23B request for remand to develop an ineffective‑assistance claim about the missed continuance, (2) hearsay/admission issues from officers’ testimony, (3) ineffective assistance for failing to object to the detective’s opinion, and (4) cumulative error. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Samples' Argument | State/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23B remand / ineffective assistance for not requesting a midtrial continuance to obtain a rebuttal expert | Counsel should have sought a continuance to procure a medical expert who would have testified bruises/fractures could be pre‑ or post‑mortem; Samples proffered a declarant’s statement | Proffer was nonspecific as to producibility/timing; trial strategy and local jury contamination risks made a continuance likely futile; counsel reasonably countered via closing argument | Denied remand; counsel not shown deficient—no warrant to remand under Rule 23B |
| Admissibility of detective repeating Girlfriend’s out‑of‑court statements (hearsay) | Repetition improperly bolstered Girlfriend and prejudiced Samples | Testimony was cumulative of Girlfriend’s vivid in‑court account; any error harmless because no reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result without it | No reversible error; no prejudice from Detective’s repetition |
| Ineffective assistance for not objecting to Captain repeating Girlfriend’s statements | Failure to object was deficient and prejudicial | Even if deficient, testimony was cumulative and defense exploited inconsistencies; no reasonable probability of different outcome | Claim fails for lack of prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance for not objecting to detective’s opinion that Girlfriend’s cast made causing injuries unlikely | Counsel should have objected to improper lay/expert opinion that bolstered State’s case | Detective’s statement was equivocal and non‑expert; jury heard direct evidence from Girlfriend and Samples about the cast; removal of the comment unlikely to change outcome | No prejudice shown; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to counsel’s tactical choices in ineffective assistance review)
- State v. Griffin, 441 P.3d 1166 (Rule 23B remand framework and when remand is unnecessary)
- State v. Vallejo, 449 P.3d 39 (motion‑to‑continue futility governs deficiency analysis)
- State v. Gunter, 304 P.3d 866 (counsel not ineffective for failing to seek continuance when likely to be denied)
- Mackin v. State, 387 P.3d 986 (continuance factors and trial‑court discretion)
- State v. Ray, 469 P.3d 871 (appellate review of ineffective assistance claims)
- State v. Martinez‑Castellanos, 428 P.3d 1038 (cumulative‑error standard and prejudice inquiry)