Summary
The Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether Tracy Scott received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial lawyer failed to argue that an alleged threat by the victim was admissible non-hearsay. The court held that the ineffective-assistance inquiry could not be resolved without the content and context of the threat, reversed the Utah Court of Appeals, and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of Scott's Rule 23B motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Utah Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Scott's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue that Teresa's alleged threat was admissible non-hearsay.
- Whether the record was sufficient to determine that counsel's omission was objectively unreasonable under Strickland.
- Whether the record was sufficient to determine that counsel's omission prejudiced Scott.
- Whether the court of appeals should address Scott's remaining challenge to the district court's verdict-urging jury instruction.
Holdings
- The alleged threat was not hearsay because it was offered to show its effect on Scott as the listener, rather than for the truth of the matter asserted.
- The court of appeals erred by concluding that counsel was deficient without considering the content and context of the threat. Without that information, the record was insufficient to determine whether counsel's omission fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
- The court of appeals erred by concluding that Scott was prejudiced without considering the content of the threat. The record was insufficient to determine whether admission of the threat created a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
Key quotations
“Where the actual threat was not in the record, there was insufficient information to make this determination.” (¶ 41)
“Without considering the specifics of the threat, it is impossible to determine whether Scott’s trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).” (¶ 47)
Factual background
Scott admitted shooting his wife, Teresa, three times, but argued that he acted under extreme emotional distress caused by her threatening behavior and the apparent removal of her handgun from the couple's gun safe. At trial, the court excluded Scott's testimony about a specific threat Teresa allegedly made several days before the shooting on hearsay grounds, and defense counsel did not argue that the statement was offered for its effect on Scott rather than for its truth. The content and context of the threat were never placed in the trial or appellate record.
Procedural history
Scott was convicted by a jury of domestic-violence murder and sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison. The Utah Court of Appeals held that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that Teresa's alleged threat was admissible non-hearsay and reversed the conviction, remanding for a new trial. The Utah Supreme Court granted the State's certiorari petition and reversed and remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings, including consideration of Scott's Rule 23B motion and his remaining challenge to a verdict-urging jury instruction.
Remand instructions
The court of appeals must proceed in accordance with the Utah Supreme Court's opinion, consider Scott's Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 23B motion to develop the record concerning the threat, and address Scott's remaining claim concerning the district court's verdict-urging jury instruction.