State v. Stidham, 320 P.3d 696

Defendant (Stidham) and two companions got into an altercation with club bouncers; the bouncer suffered serious injuries and Stidham was convicted in a bench trial of third-degree felony assault with an in-concert enhancement.
Stidham and Codefendant were jointly represented by the same trial counsel throughout; the court repeatedly asked counsel about potential conflicts and counsel repeatedly denied any conflict.
On the morning of trial Codefendant pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor; counsel later decided not to call Codefendant as a witness for Stidham, allegedly because counsel feared it could hurt Codefendant at imminent sentencing.
At trial the State offered multiple cumulative employee witnesses; Stidham was the sole defense witness and was found guilty. After conviction, Stidham obtained affidavits from Codefendant’s counsel, his girlfriend (who witnessed events), and an independent eyewitness who later came forward.
Stidham moved for a new trial claiming counsel had a conflict of interest, provided ineffective assistance by not calling witnesses (Girlfriend and Codefendant), and that newly discovered evidence (the eyewitness) warranted a new trial.
The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding no conflict, treating the new evidence as cumulative, and doubting witness credibility. The appellate court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conflict of interest from joint representation after Codefendant pleaded guilty	Trial court erred denying new trial; conflict arose when counsel declined to call Codefendant to avoid harming Codefendant’s sentencing	Counsel’s prior on-the-record denials of conflict and the trial court’s observations show no actual conflict	Remanded for evidentiary hearing to resolve whether an actual conflict existed and affected counsel’s performance (prejudice presumed if actual conflict shown)
Ineffective assistance for failing to call Girlfriend and Codefendant	Counsel failed to investigate/call available favorable witnesses; omission was not a tactical decision after adequate inquiry	Trial court found witnesses cumulative or lacking credibility; counsel focused on Stidham and acted reasonably	Remanded for live testimony to determine whether counsel’s decisions were deficient and, if so, prejudicial under Strickland standards
Newly discovered evidence (post-trial eyewitness)	Eyewitness was unknown at trial, independently supports defense, and could produce a different result on retrial	Trial court treated testimony as cumulative of Stidham’s and questioned credibility because it surfaced post-trial	Remanded for an evidentiary hearing to assess James factors (discoverability, non-cumulativeness, probability of different result)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (prejudice presumed when an actual conflict of interest adversely affects representation)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (conflict-of-interest principles and analysis)
State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 (Utah 1990) (counsel must investigate prospective defense witnesses before making tactical decisions)
State v. James, 819 P.2d 781 (Utah 1991) (standards for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
State v. Lenkart, 262 P.3d 1 (Utah 2011) (standard of review for denial of new trial)
State v. Lovell, 984 P.2d 382 (Utah 1999) (analysis on how to test whether counsel would have acted differently absent conflict)
State v. Person, 140 P.3d 584 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (framework for assessing conflict impact on counsel’s choices)
United States v. Horton, 845 F.2d 1414 (7th Cir. 1988) (definition of conflict where counsel must choose advancing one client’s interests to detriment of another)
State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (presumption of prejudice when an actual conflict adversely affected performance)
State v. Johnson, 823 P.2d 484 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (same principle on presumed prejudice)