State v. Cartwright

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Aaron Paul Cartwright’s conviction for aggravated assault. The court rejected his ineffective-assistance claims concerning a defense-of-others jury instruction and objections to alleged leading questions, and it denied his request for a Rule 23B remand to develop a claim involving medical records.

Holdings

1. Counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to request a defense-of-others instruction because the trial evidence did not provide a reasonable basis to support the defense, and any belief that force was necessary to prevent imminent self-harm was not objectively reasonable, imminent, or proportionate.
2. Counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor's questions. Some questions were not leading, while others were leading but could reasonably have been viewed as strategic battles not worth fighting; in any event, Cartwright failed to show a reasonable probability that objecting would have changed the verdict.
3. The court denied Cartwright's Rule 23B motion because, even assuming counsel was deficient in failing to seek admission of medical records showing a human bite, Cartwright did not demonstrate prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on defense of others.
2. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to allegedly leading questions asked by the prosecutor of the complaining witness.
3. Whether the court should remand under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 23B to supplement the record with medical records allegedly showing that Cartwright suffered a human bite, in support of an ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to offer those records.

Disposition

affirmed