State v. Steele, 2021 UT App 39

Emma, a trainee truck driver, was assigned to Steele for a 28‑day on‑the‑job training trip; within ~30 minutes of meeting, Steele forcibly assaulted her in the truck’s sleeper cab (intercourse and oral sex), threatened her, and left; Emma immediately fled, reported the assault, and a sexual assault nurse found injuries consistent with her account.
Steele claimed the encounter was consensual and later asserted Emma told him she was bisexual and had not been with a man for years.
The State filed a Utah R. Evid. 412 motion to exclude evidence of the victim’s sexual behavior/orientation; Steele’s trial counsel stipulated to exclude statements that Emma was bisexual or had not been with a man, while reserving the right to revisit depending on later evidence.
Pretrial and trial argument focused on whether Wife (Emma’s spouse) could testify; the court ultimately allowed Wife to testify as Emma’s spouse but barred evidence of Emma’s sexual orientation unless the door was opened at trial.
The jury convicted Steele of rape and forcible sodomy; on appeal Steele argued ineffective assistance of counsel based on how counsel handled evidence of Emma’s sexual orientation and related rulings; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Steele)	Defendant's Argument (State/Counsel)	Held
1) Counsel stipulated to R.412 motion without reserving explicit R.412(b)(3) caveat	Counsel should have preserved right to admit victim’s bisexuality under R.412(b)(3) if State opened the door; omission was ineffective	Court would have rejected R.412(b)(3) argument on the merits; omission did not prejudice Steele	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice because court ruled plaintiff’s theory on merits would fail
2) Counsel failed to expressly move to exclude Wife’s testimony under R.403	Counsel should have moved under R.403 to exclude Emma’s spouse as unduly prejudicial given consent issue	Counsel made substantive arguments about prejudice and low probative value; court conducted balancing and limited testimony; explicit R.403 label unnecessary	No ineffective assistance; counsel’s substantive objections prompted the ruling Steele sought
3) Counsel objected to court’s limiting ruling (Wife as acquaintance)	Objecting to a favorable ruling was unreasonable and caused admission that Emma was married to a woman	Counsel reasonably sought complete exclusion of Wife; objecting to preserve a better ruling was a valid strategy	No ineffective assistance; counsel’s objection had reasonable strategic basis and Steele failed to show deficient performance or prejudice

State v. Scott, 462 P.3d 350 (Utah 2020) (articulating ineffective‑assistance prejudice standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Ray, 469 P.3d 871 (Utah 2020) (deference to reasonable strategic choices by counsel)
State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (high bar for R.412(b)(3) constitutional‑rights exception)
State v. Edgar, 397 P.3d 656 (Utah App. 2017) (prejudice requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
State v. Wright, 481 P.3d 479 (Utah App. 2021) (trial court’s record can show substantive R.403 balancing)
State v. Gallegos, 463 P.3d 641 (Utah 2020) (assessing reasonableness of counsel’s strategy in real‑time)
Salt Lake City v. Josephson, 435 P.3d 255 (Utah 2019) (explicit formulaic phrasing not required to preserve objection)