State v. Zimpfer
State v. Zimpfer, 2024 UT App 136 (Luthy, J.)
Criminal Law
A defendant was convicted of forcible sexual abuse and voyeurism. He argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain testimonial and documentary evidence and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek the exclusion of certain video evidence and in not presenting expert testimony. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding in part:
- The trial court abused its discretion in admitting a journal entry written after the witness’s motive to fabricate arose, but the error was harmless.