State v. Salsman
State v. Salsman, 2024 UT App 92 (Oliver, J.)
Criminal Law
A jury convicted Defendant of various drug charges and possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person. On appeal, Defendant argued that (1) the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance to secure testimony from a witness who was incarcerated out of state, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to object to a jury instruction. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, because Defendant did not show that the incarcerated witness’s missing testimony would have affected the outcome of his case.
- Counsel did not provide ineffective assistance in failing to object to a jury instruction, because Defendant could not show prejudice.