State v. Vu, 405 P.3d 879

Background:

Over six weeks police supervised five controlled meth purchases from Thomas J. Vu by a confidential informant; detective monitored calls and corroborated details.
Three buys occurred from the same apartment (where police later found Vu), one at a gas station in a Nissan Altima Vu drove; informant reported seeing Vu with a handgun behind the center console.
Search warrant for the apartment and the Altima recovered 31 grams of methamphetamine in a pouch next to Vu in a bedroom, mail and personal items linking Vu to the room, and a handgun behind the front center console of the Altima.
Vu was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana, and possession of a firearm by a restricted person; the jury convicted on the meth and firearm counts and acquitted on marijuana.
At trial defense counsel stipulated that Vu was a Category I restricted person (so the State did not present felony-conviction evidence); Vu objected to admission of the controlled-buy testimony but lost; he appealed claiming ineffective assistance, evidentiary error under Rule 404(b), and insufficient evidence of constructive possession.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court plain-erred or counsel was ineffective by not bifurcating firearm charge	State: no obligation to bifurcate; stipulation avoided revealing felony history	Vu: failing to request separate trial prejudiced him because jury learned his restricted status	No plain error; no ineffective assistance—no obvious legal duty to bifurcate and stipulation minimized prejudice
Admissibility of confidential informant’s testimony about five controlled buys (Utah R. Evid. 404(b))	State: buys are noncharacter evidence probative of intent to distribute	Vu: prior bad-acts testimony was prejudicial and speculative given informant's credibility problems	Admission was within trial court discretion; buys were admissible to show intent and probative value outweighed prejudice
Sufficiency of evidence that Vu constructively possessed methamphetamine with intent to distribute	State: drugs were next to Vu, in distributable quantity, linked to apartment he used and to prior sales there	Vu: other occupants could have owned the drugs; apartment not rented to him	Evidence sufficient—jury could infer dominion, control, and intent from quantity, location, personal effects, and prior buys
Sufficiency of evidence that Vu constructively possessed the firearm	State: surveillance, informant saw gun behind console near drugs, Vu drove and modified the car	Vu: he was not registered owner and did not have exclusive use; may not have known of gun	Evidence sufficient—constructive possession could be inferred from vehicle use, pattern of control, and informant corroboration

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
State v. Fox, 709 P.2d 316 (Utah 1985) (constructive-possession and intent-to-distribute standards)
State v. Reece, 349 P.3d 712 (Utah 2015) (bifurcation discussion and prejudice analysis regarding firearms and felony status)
State v. Clark, 89 P.3d 162 (Utah 2004) (standard for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims raised on appeal)
State v. Goddard, 871 P.2d 540 (Utah 1994) (sufficiency review: reverse only when evidence so inconclusive or improbable)