State v. Rosecrans
State v. Rosecrans, 2024 UT App 128 (Oliver, J.)
Criminal
After a bench trial, Rosecrans was acquitted of aggravated assault but convicted of two misdemeanor assault charges. Rosecrans appealed, arguing that her counsel rendered ineffective assistance for not arguing self-defense on the misdemeanor assault charges and that the trial court committed plain error by not making findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its verdict. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- Because Rosecrans elected a bench trial, Counsel did not render ineffective assistance in not presenting a jury instruction and not arguing self-defense during closing as to the misdemeanor charges.
- The trial court’s lack of factual findings and conclusions did not amount to plain error.
- Practice Tip: Fundamental differences exist between a bench trial and a jury trial that affect an appellate court’s analysis, because judges come to a trial generally well-versed in the law while jurors generally do not, and judges are not subject to many of the same concerns about prejudice and improper influence as jurors.