State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13

Background

Tracy Scott shot and killed his wife, Teresa; he admitted the shooting but contended it was committed under "extreme emotional distress," which, if credited, could reduce murder to manslaughter.
In the days before the shooting Teresa allegedly made a threat to Scott and a gun belonging to Teresa was missing from the couple’s gun safe; Scott testified he was "scared to death."
At trial the court sustained the State’s hearsay objections when Scott tried to relate the specific words of Teresa’s alleged threat; defense counsel did not argue the statement was non‑hearsay and did not introduce the threat’s content.
The specific wording and context of the alleged threat never made it into the trial record; the jury convicted Scott of murder and he received 15 years to life.
On appeal the State conceded the threat was not hearsay; the Utah Court of Appeals found counsel ineffective for failing to argue admissibility and reversed; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to review that conclusion.
The Utah Supreme Court held that because the record lacked the threat’s content, the court of appeals erred: without those specifics, whether counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial under Strickland could not be determined; the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was constitutionally deficient for not arguing the alleged threat was non‑hearsay	Scott: counsel failed to preserve/admit critical non‑hearsay evidence needed for extreme emotional distress defense	State: cannot determine deficiency without the threat’s content; counsel may have had strategic reasons	Court: Cannot find deficiency on the record; absent the threat’s content, objective unreasonableness cannot be shown; remand
Whether counsel’s omission prejudiced the defense under Strickland	Scott: admission likely would have increased chance of mistrial or different verdict	State: prejudice depends on the substance of the threat and the trial record; could help or hurt Scott	Court: Prejudice cannot be assessed without the threat’s specifics and considering the totality of evidence; remand
Whether Premo’s language that asks if "no competent attorney" would act similarly alters Strickland	Scott: Moore should not impose a heightened standard beyond Strickland	State: Moore’s language supports a demanding deficiency inquiry	Court: Declines to treat Moore as changing Strickland; applies Strickland standard but notes Moore language without expanding the rule
Whether the supplemental jury instruction (verdict‑urging) was improper	Scott: trial court’s supplemental instruction coerced a verdict when jury was at impasse	State: (defended trial court's actions)	Court: Did not rule on this claim; remanded to the court of appeals to address remaining issues including the instruction

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (established two‑prong deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011) (language queried whether "no competent attorney" would have acted similarly)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (performance inquiry may include consideration of strategic reasons)
Bullock v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2002) (failure to know relevant law does not automatically establish constitutional deficiency)
State v. Heaps, 999 P.2d 565 (Utah 2000) (standard for viewing and reciting evidence on appeal)
State v. Sanchez, 422 P.3d 866 (Utah 2018) (statements offered for effect on listener are not hearsay)
State v. Garcia, 424 P.3d 171 (Utah 2017) (defendant bears burden to show reasonable probability that counsel’s error changed outcome)