State v. Steele

Utah Court of Appeals · 2021 · Evidence

2021 Utah App. 39 (2021)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceIneffective assistance of counselRule 412Rule 403ineffective assistanceStricklandUtah Rule of Evidence 412Utah Rule of Evidence 403

Facts

Before trial, the State moved under Utah Rule of Evidence 412 to exclude references to Emma's statements that she was bisexual and had not been with a man for years, and Steele's counsel stipulated to exclusion of those statements while reserving only a general right to seek admission of future Rule 412 evidence. In pretrial proceedings, counsel argued that if the State introduced evidence that Emma was married to a woman through Wife's testimony, that would prejudice Steele and should allow evidence of Emma's bisexuality; the district court rejected that argument on the merits, ruling that the mere fact Emma was married to a woman did not open the door, though it said a different ruling might follow if Emma claimed she would never sleep with a man. After briefly ruling that Wife could testify only as an acquaintance, the court reversed course following counsel's continued objection and allowed Wife to testify as Emma's spouse, while still excluding evidence of Emma's bisexuality. The jury convicted Steele, and the allegedly bisexuality evidence was never introduced because no witness testified that Emma would not consent to sex with a man.

Issue

Did Steele's trial counsel render ineffective assistance by stipulating to the Rule 412 motion without a specific constitutional-rights caveat, by failing to expressly invoke Rule 403 to exclude evidence that Emma was married to a woman, or by objecting to the court's interim ruling that Wife could testify only as an acquaintance?

Rule

To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice. Counsel's performance is deficient only if the acts or omissions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and no deficiency is shown where counsel's conduct could further a reasonable strategy or was not objectively unreasonable in context. Prejudice requires a reasonable probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome; where the trial court rejected the underlying evidentiary argument on the merits, the defendant cannot show prejudice from counsel's failure to frame the issue differently.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a sexual assault trial in Provo, defense counsel stipulated that the complainant's prior statements about her sexual history would be excluded under Rule 412. Before trial, however, the judge separately heard and rejected the defense argument that if the jury learned the complainant was engaged to a woman, the defendant should be allowed to introduce evidence that she had previously dated men.

After conviction, the defendant argues counsel was ineffective for drafting the stipulation without an express constitutional-rights exception. Which is the strongest response?

Explanation. Under the majority's reasoning, a defendant cannot show Strickland prejudice from counsel's failure to word a stipulation differently when the trial court independently considered and rejected the underlying evidentiary argument on the merits. The alleged error in phrasing did not cause exclusion; the merits ruling did.