State v. Durfee

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Fredrick Dee Durfee’s conviction for object rape. The court rejected his ineffective-assistance claim concerning expert testimony about the victim’s injuries, concluding that counsel’s handling of the testimony was objectively reasonable. The court also upheld the trial court’s ruling concerning the permissible scope of cross-examination regarding character evidence, while clarifying the application of Utah Rules of Evidence 404 and 405.

Holdings

1. Counsel did not provide deficient performance by declining to object to the expert's testimony because counsel could reasonably interpret the testimony as permissible general expert testimony and could reasonably choose to clarify it through cross-examination.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by provisionally allowing the State to ask the character witness about a relevant specific instance in which Durfee refused to leave her home after being asked to do so.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to an expert's testimony concerning the relationship between Eliza's injuries and consensual sexual activity.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by provisionally allowing the State, on cross-examination of a defense character witness, to inquire about Durfee's refusal to leave the witness's home upon request.

Disposition

affirmed