State v. Vine
State v. Vine, 2025 UT App 147 (Harris, J.)
Criminal
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- Counsel did not perform deficiently by choosing to not object to the admissibility of several short video clips under multiple rules of evidence.
- Counsel performed deficiently by asking questions that made the jury aware of the pending domestic violence case against Defendant, but Defendant was not prejudiced.
- Counsel did not perform deficiently by not objecting to jury instructions that accurately reflected the statutory requirements and followed the model Utah jury instructions.
- Practice Tip: Attorneys should exercise caution when questioning witnesses to ensure that they do not unintentionally mention evidence that could trigger a propensity inference under rule 404(b) of the Utah rules of evidence.