State v. Horn
State v. Horn, 2026 UT App 35 (Luthy, J.)
Criminal Law
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- Defendant’s argument that a witness’s testimony was inherently improbable was unpreserved, and the district court did not plainly err in failing to disregard the testimony.
- The district court properly denied Defendant’s motion for directed verdict.
- Counsel was not ineffective for failing to (1) argue “this was a process-of- elimination case,” (2) move to exclude testimony under rule 617, or (3) request a cautionary jury instruction.
- Practice Tip: A general motion for a directed verdict arguing the State presented insufficient evidence does not preserve a specific claim that a witness’s testimony is inherently improbable. To preserve this issue, a defendant must specifically ask the trial court to disregard the testimony as inherently improbable.
- Practice tip: If the factors in rule 17 generally support the reliability of the eyewitness, a Long instruction may inadvertently bolster the prosecution’s case, and counsel does not perform ineffectively by not requesting on in these circumstances.