State v. Ray

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to a forcible sexual abuse jury instruction that did not define "indecent liberties." The court held that counsel's performance was not deficient because, under the circumstances, counsel could reasonably have chosen not to draw attention to that statutory alternative. The court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated Ray's conviction, remanding for consideration of his remaining claims.

Holdings

1. Counsel's failure to object to an erroneous or incomplete jury instruction does not automatically constitute deficient performance; the court must determine whether the omission, viewed in the circumstances of the particular case, fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
2. Counsel did not perform deficiently by declining to object to or seek clarification of the "indecent liberties" language because the State focused on the specific-touching variant, the meaning of indecent liberties was not pertinent to Ray's defense, and counsel could reasonably have decided not to draw attention to the alternative theory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to a forcible-sexual-abuse jury instruction that included the undefined term "indecent liberties."
2. Whether counsel's failure to seek a definition of "indecent liberties" or removal of that statutory alternative fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under Strickland.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded