State v. Hernandez
State v. Hernandez, 2024 UT App 127 (Oliver, J.)
Criminal
On appeal from a conviction for patronizing a prostitute, Defendant argued that: (1) testimony regarding the events leading to his arrest was inherently improbable; (2) testimony regarding his agreement for sex, the typical behavior of “johns,” and the dangers of undercover work was inadmissible under Utah Rules of Evidence 403, 702, and 704; and (3) the jury instruction omitted an element of the statutory offense. Reviewing each of these issues for ineffective assistance and plain error, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, holding:
- Inconsistent testimony was not “inherently improbable.”
- Testimony regarding defendant’s agreement for sex and the typical behavior of “johns” was admissible, and testimony regarding the dangers of undercover work was not prejudicial.
- Jury instruction was not erroneous where it fairly informed jury of the offense and where any errors were not prejudicial.