State v. Draughon

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Damien Michael Draughon’s convictions for child sexual abuse, dealing in materials harmful to a minor, and obstruction of justice. The court rejected his challenges to the sufficiency and inherent improbability of the victim’s testimony and addressed claims of ineffective assistance concerning a recorded telephone conversation and expert grooming testimony. The court also considered, among other issues, preservation and alleged plain error regarding the jury’s instruction on offense classifications.

Holdings

1. A general challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence did not preserve an argument that a witness's testimony was inherently improbable because counsel did not specifically ask the district court to disregard the testimony under that doctrine or cite supporting authority.
2. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise an inherent-improbability objection because such an objection would have been futile.
3. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction because Sarah testified that Draughon touched her breast, and the jury was entitled to credit her refreshed recollection.
4. Any assumed deficient performance concerning the phone-call recording or grooming testimony, and the district court's obvious error in informing the jury of offense classifications, did not prejudice Draughon individually or cumulatively.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in denying a directed-verdict motion because Sarah's testimony was inherently improbable.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an inherent-improbability objection.
3. Whether the evidence was insufficient to support the sexual-abuse conviction arising from the Recliner Incident.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the recorded telephone call under Utah's wiretap law or the Utah Rules of Evidence.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to expert testimony concerning grooming.
6. Whether the district court plainly erred by informing the jury of the felony classifications of the charged offenses.
7. Whether the asserted errors cumulatively prejudiced Draughon.

Disposition

affirmed