State v. Selzer
294 P.3d 617
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Selzer and his live-in girlfriend S.G. drank together from May 31 into the early hours of June 1, 2008, culminating in assaults and sexual activity.
- Around 3:00 a.m., Selzer forced S.G. to perform oral sex and then had intercourse after telling her she was his woman, while S.G. told him to stop and he squeezed her throat.
- S.G. was later assaulted again on the way to a gas station, where Selzer continued attacking her; a gas station attendant heard her pleas and police observed Selzer with S.G. holding her neck.
- S.G. reported the sexual assault later and underwent a medical examination revealing a labial tear and mouth redness, consistent with nonconsensual sex according to examiners.
- Selzer faced two separate prosecutions: a gas station assault (misdemeanor) in Provo City and felony aggravated sexual assault charges in Utah County arising from the sexual assault; a motion to dismiss for a single-episode rule was denied in part, allowing the sexual assault charges to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Selzer argues trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present a defense expert. | Selzer's counsel reasonably relied on a qualified expert who could testify that injuries were consistent with consensual as well as nonconsensual sex. | Not ineffective; no prejudice shown; counsel reasonably relied on expert Crockett and cross-examined the State's experts. |
| Single criminal episode dismissal | Selzer contends the aggravated sexual assaults and gas-station assault arose from a single episode and should have been dismissed. | State contends the crimes did not arise from a single episode or were not known to the first prosecutor when arraigned. | Not barred; district court could have found separate episodes or lack of knowledge by the first prosecutor; affirming denial of the motion to dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Arriaga, 288 P.3d 588 (Utah App. 2012) (applies standard for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims after Rule 23B remand)
- State v. Mead, 27 P.3d 1115 (Utah 2001) (defines single criminal episode timing and objective considerations)
- State v. Robison, 147 P.3d 448 (Utah 2006) (discusses burden to show single-episode error on appeal)
- State v. Hurt, 227 P.3d 271 (Utah App. 2010) (addressing standards for reviewing denial of suppression and related motions)