State v. Thompson
2014 UT App 14
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 2002 Thompson (32) stayed at A.T.'s home when she was 16; in 2004 she reported two instances of oral sex on the second morning of a two-night visit in Salt Lake City; Thompson was charged with two counts of forcible sodomy.
- At the 2007 jury trial A.T. was the State's primary witness; Thompson testified and introduced his commercial driver's logs to establish he was en route to Wisconsin at the time alleged.
- The State, after a short recess, produced a rebuttal witness (a Utah Highway Patrol transportation specialist) who relied on a PC*Miler printout to say Thompson’s logged travel times were impossible and that Thompson had “cooked the books.” The specialist did not generate the report and lacked familiarity with the report’s settings.
- Trial counsel did not investigate the specialist’s qualifications, the report’s foundation, or seek a continuance or expert surrebuttal; counsel also failed to object to multiple prosecutor statements during closing (including vouching for the specialist and commenting on body language).
- After conviction, Thompson moved under Utah R. App. P. 23B for an evidentiary hearing; the remand court found the specialist lacked requisite expertise for the PCMiler analysis and that the PCMiler results were unreliable when correctly run. The appellate court addressed ineffective-assistance and cumulative-prejudice issues and reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the rebuttal specialist’s qualifications and the PC*Miler report foundation | Counsel should have investigated, objected to, and disqualified the specialist and excluded the PC*Miler report as unreliable/hearsay | The specialist rebutted defendant’s use of the logs; the State could rely on the report under expert‑reliance rules and the specialist’s background | Held: Counsel performed deficiently for failing to investigate or challenge the specialist/report; the report was unreliable and its admission problematic |
| 2. Whether admission of the specialist’s testimony and PC*Miler printout constituted impermissible character/impeachment evidence under Rules 404/405/608 | Specialist’s testimony was used to show Thompson’s untruthful character and should have been excluded | The testimony was proper rebuttal/impeachment of Thompson’s affirmative reliance on the logs; not character evidence | Held: The testimony was proper rebuttal to Thompson’s placement of the logs into evidence, so Rules 404/405/608 did not bar it; but admissibility still required proper foundation and expert qualification |
| 3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct during cross-exam and closings (vouching, body-language expertizing, appeals to passion) | Counsel should have objected, sought curative instruction, or rebutted; the misconduct prejudiced credibility determinations central to the case | State contended statements were reasonable inferences from evidence and within closing-argument latitude | Held: Several prosecutor comments (vouching for specialist, asserting personal disbelief in witnesses, instructing jury on lie-detection body language, asking jury to "send a message") were improper; counsel’s failure to object was deficient |
| 4. Whether cumulative effect of counsel’s failures and prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal | Cumulative deficiencies undermined confidence in verdict given the credibility-driven, thin evidentiary record | State argued other inconsistencies and evidence made verdict supportable even without the specialist testimony | Held: Cumulative errors (failure to challenge specialist/report, failure to object to misconduct) undermined confidence in the verdict; convictions reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Workman, 122 P.3d 639 (Utah 2005) (expert reliance on out-of-court reports limited; expert cannot testify to another analyst's conclusions absent personal involvement)
- State v. Bakalov, 979 P.2d 799 (Utah 1999) (distinguishes permissible closing argument deductions from improper vouching or personal knowledge)
- State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 (Utah 1990) (counsel's failure to investigate can constitute deficient performance)
- State v. Whittle, 989 P.2d 52 (Utah 1999) (appellate standard for prejudice under ineffective-assistance analysis; "confidence in the verdict" inquiry)