State v. Schoenenberger
2024 UT App 187
| Utah Ct. App. | 2024Background
- Joshua Scott Schoenenberger was convicted of aggravated murder after his girlfriend’s two-year-old son died from injuries consistent with blunt-force trauma while under his care.
- After taking the child to the hospital, police interrogated Schoenenberger multiple times, during which he gave several inconsistent accounts before ultimately admitting to harming the child.
- Schoenenberger moved to suppress his statements to police, arguing they were involuntary due to coercive police interrogation tactics; the trial court denied the motion based on audio recordings and partial transcripts, not a complete official transcript.
- At trial, Schoenenberger’s confessions were admitted, and the jury convicted him; he then moved for a new trial, citing errors related to the suppression ruling and prosecutorial comments, but the court denied the motion.
- On appeal, Schoenenberger raised issues regarding the voluntariness of his confession, sufficiency of the record for the suppression ruling, effectiveness of his trial counsel, and sought a remand to further develop ineffective assistance claims under rule 23B.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of Confession | Interrogation was coercive, considering tactics like police falsehoods, promises, and prolonged detention | Police tactics were not sufficiently egregious; confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances | The confession was voluntary; motion to suppress properly denied |
| Ruling without Official Transcript | Court erred and denied fair trial by issuing a ruling before receipt of complete transcript | Audio and partial transcript were sufficient; law does not require official transcript for voluntariness analysis | No plain error; sufficient record existed for ruling |
| Prosecutor’s Reference to Miranda Invocation | Improper for prosecutor to refer to his invocation of rights, violating Doyle v. Ohio | Reference was permissible, only to rebut coercion claim, not to imply guilt | No Doyle violation; motion for new trial properly denied |
| Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Rule 23B Remand | Counsel deficient in handling suppression motion, new trial motion, and mitigation at sentencing | No showing of deficient performance or prejudice; counsel acted reasonably | No ineffective assistance; remand motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rettenberger, 984 P.2d 1009 (Utah 1999) (describes the totality-of-circumstances standard for determining voluntariness of confessions and impact of police tactics)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (prohibits use of post-Miranda silence to impeach a defendant’s trial explanation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Kelley, 1 P.3d 546 (Utah 2000) (futile objections do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Miller, 535 P.3d 390 (Utah Ct. App. 2023) (recites the Strickland test and requirement for demonstrable prejudice for ineffective assistance claims)