State v. Wright, 304 P.3d 887

Justin G. Wright was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of his daughter based on testimony that he touched her vagina, buttocks, and breasts during visits when she was 6–9; disclosure occurred ~10 months after the last alleged incident.
Daughter first told a cousin, then in August 2008 told Mother and Mother’s fiancé; police investigator Detective Peggy Faulkner interviewed Daughter and testified at trial.
At trial, defense advanced a "mistake" theory (child misinterpreted affectionate touching, possibly influenced by media and changed family dynamics) rather than a fabrication theory (intentional falsehood induced by Mother); Wright testified and defense witnesses described an affectionate family culture.
The prosecutor rebutted defense theory in closing; jury convicted Wright on one count and acquitted on the other.
On appeal and Rule 23B remand the district court found trial counsel’s investigation and strategic choices reasonable; the appellate court reviews ineffective-assistance findings deferentially but legal conclusions de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wright)	Held
Ineffective assistance — investigation & strategy	Counsel reasonably investigated and had tactical basis to pursue mistake defense and limit witnesses/exhibits	Counsel failed to adequately investigate fabrication and mistake defenses, and underused witnesses/exhibits	Conviction affirmed; counsel’s investigation and strategic choice of mistake defense were reasonable (no deficient performance)
Admission of detective’s testimony about delayed reporting	Testimony that delayed reporting is common (and detective saying ~1/3 of her cases had delays) was permissible/contextual or harmless if erroneous	Detective’s quasi‑statistical comment was expertlike and inadmissible without qualification	Even if the percentage statement was erroneous, admission was harmless; no reversal
Prosecutorial misconduct — closing argument	Prosecutor’s rebuttal was a fair response to defense’s suggestion about motive	Closing statement urging jury “You have the power to make that stop” improperly appealed to jurors’ emotions and urged protective role	Court found last sentence improper but harmless beyond reasonable doubt given instructions and overall record
Cumulative error	Errors were minor and individually harmless	Cumulative effect undermines fairness and warrants reversal	No cumulative prejudice; conviction affirmed

State v. Bredehoft, 966 P.2d 285 (Utah Ct. App.) (defer to trial court’s factual findings on ineffective assistance; review legal conclusions for correctness)
State v. Clark, 89 P.3d 162 (Utah) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim first raised on appeal presents a question of law)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 (Utah) (counsel may strategically call or not call witnesses after adequate inquiry)
State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah) (presumption that counsel’s challenged actions may be sound trial strategy)
State v. King, 283 P.3d 980 (Utah Ct. App.) (no ineffective assistance where there is any conceivable tactical basis)
State v. Bair, 275 P.3d 1050 (Utah Ct. App.) (delayed reporting in child sexual abuse cases is commonly recognized)
State v. Ross, 174 P.3d 628 (Utah) (standard for reversing based on prosecutorial misconduct and harmlessness review)