State v. Whitchurch
State v. Whitchurch, 2024 UT App 108 (Luthy, J.)
Criminal Law
Whitchurch was convicted of murder, aggravated assault, and aggravated burglary after a jury trial. On appeal, Whitchurch argued Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to object to or introduce various pieces of evidence. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions, holding:
- Counsel’s conduct in not objecting to the investigating officer’s opinion testimony and in not objecting to the admission of the jailhouse letter did not amount to deficient performance. Even assuming error, any resulting prejudice from would be purely speculative.
- Practice tip: The question of whether rule 106 of the Utah Rules of Evidence can defeat other rules of evidence that work against admissibility—such as hearsay—or whether rule 106 is solely a rule of timing is an open question in Utah.
