1. The Honorable Russell W. B ench an d the Honor able Pam ela T. Gre en wo o d, S en ior Judg es, sat by spe cial a ssignm en tas auth ori ze d by law. Seege ner a llyUtah Co de Jud. Adm i n. R. 11-201(6)

. 2014 UT App 192

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U T AH 

### C OU RT O F 

### A PPEALS

S TA TE O F U T AH , P la i nti ff an d A pp el le e,
v. C H RI STOPH ER B. D O UTRE , D efen da nt a nd Ap pe ll an t. Opini on No. 20 12 09 44 -C A Filed Au gust 14, 2014

Second Di stric t Co urt, O gden Department Th e H ono rab le Ern es t W. Jo ne s No. 121900279

Samuel P. New ton, At tor ney for Appellant
Sea n D . Re yes, D an i el W. Boye r, a nd Mi c he ll e I. You ng, Attorn eys fo r Ap pe ll ee
J UDG E G REG O RY K. O R ME authore d thi s Opini on, i n whi ch S E NI OR J UD GE S R USS ELL W. B EN CH and P AMEL A T. G R E E NWOO D

concu rr ed. 1

ORME , J ud ge:
¶1 Def en da nt C hri s toph er B . D ou tre w as c onvi c ted of att e mpt ed kidn apping, a fi rst deg ree felony . He appeals that convic tion, pri mari ly arg uing that t he trial court i mproper ly di scouraged hi m from atte nding a jur y v i ew and that hi s trialSt a tev. Do ut re

2. “On appeal, we reci te the facts fro m t he recor d i n t he li ght most favor ab l e to the ju ry ’s ver di ct and present confli cti ng evidenc e only as necessary to understand iss ues r ai sed on appeal.” St a tev. Bl uff , 20 02 UT66 , ¶ 2 , 5 2 P.3 d 12 10 (c i tati ons an d inte rna l quo tati on marks omitted).

20120944-CA 2 2014 UT App 192 couns el was i neffec tive for fai ling to object t o the t esti mony of the St ate’s exper t wi tness. We rever se and remand.

BACKGRO UND 2

¶ 2 M a k ing us e o f a fe w in ch e s o f l a t e Ja nu a r y sn o w b e fo r e it
me lte d, thre e gi rls w en t s le dd i ng o n as ma llhi lli n a n u nd evel ope d lot i n the i r Ogde n nei ghb orho od. One gi rl se pa rate d from the oth er t w o g i r l s a n d b e g a n w a l k i n g t o w a r d a n e a rb y h o u s e w h e r e he r mother was v i si tin g wi th a friend . The gi rl te sti fi ed that at some poin t she fell through t he i ce that had formed at the bott om of the hi ll and got stuck i n the m ud. She recounted that a ma n s he had

never met appro ached her from behind and gr abbed her hand. She testifi ed that he t old her t hat her mot her was by hi s truck, but she kne w he r mo the r w as i n th e n ea rbyhou s e.
¶3 The other gi rls began yellin g, and , accordi ng to t he ir testim oni es, the man fl ed. B a se d on the g i rls’ descri ptions of the tr uck and the clot hes t he man was wear i ng, poli ce wer e able to fin d

an d a rres t D efen da nt a t hi s ne arb y ap artm en t.
¶4 Defendan t did not t esti fy at t rial, b ut Defendan t’s girlfri end testifi ed that Defendant told her that he was l eaving the apartment to g et ci gar ett es. S he told poli ce t hat Defendan t sai d that he saw a gi rl f al l and w al ked over to s ee i f s he ne ed ed he lp . A p oli c e offi c er
a l s o t e st ifie d tha tDe fe nd a nt st a t e d tha the we nt o ut o f h is apartment fo r a smoke and talk ed to t he girl, bu t that he only t old he r tha t he r fri en ds w ere c al ling h er a nd tha t s he s hou ld go w i th them.St a tev. Do ut re

20120944-CA 3 2014 UT App 192 ¶5 D uring tri al, the State requ es ted tha t th e ju ry b e a ll ow ed to vis i t the sleddi ng area in person. Defen dant di d not o bjec t to the propo sed jury v i ew, bu t j ai l poli cy required that law enf or cement offi cers would n eed to restr ai n and esc or t Defendant during the vi s i t. B oththe tri al c ou rt and D efen da nt’ s tri al c ou ns el w ere concerned about the prej udi ci al effect t hi s mi ght hav e i n the minds of the j uror s, and they engaged in an extended di scu ssi on about how to pr oper ly conduct the j ury v i ew. Du ring thi s di scu ssi on, the tri al c ou rt as ked D efen da nt’ s c ou ns el w hy s he w an ted hi m t o
a t t e nd the j ur y v ie w a ta l l, co ns ide r ing t h e hig h r isk o f u nf a ir p r ej ud ice

. S he r e p l ie d , “ I d o n’ twa nt, bu the ma y
. Th a t ’ s h is choi ce.” Defendant then vo lunteered, “ I wo n’ t go , Your Honor .” Th e tri al c ou rt di d n ot i mm ed i ate ly a c c ep t D efe nda nt’s offe r,
em ph as i zing tha t i t di d not w an t to “f orc e [ D efen da nt] one w ay or the oth er,” a nd en c ou rage d D efen da nt t o di s c us s the ma tter w i th hi s attor ney. De fe nd ant ulti mately did n ot at tend the j ury v i ew. D efen da nt’ s c ou ns el w as pre s en t du ri ng the jury vi ewan d di d n ot rais e any obj ecti ons to t he way i n whi ch i t was condu cted.
¶6 Back i n the courtr oom, t he jury he a r d from sever al wi tnesses, i nclu di ng Detecti ve Glenn Bu ss, one of the investigati ng poli ce offi cers. The jury had a l r e a d y met Buss b ecaus e he was ap pointe d b y th e c ou rt to gu i de the jury d ur ing t he jury vi ew
e a r l ie r tha td a y
. I n a d d it io n t o t e st ify ing abo ut his inv e st ig a t io n in gener al, the St ate used Bus s as anexp e r t witness to t esti fy about

w h a t a p p e a re d to b e e vi d e n c e of f oo tp rin ts l e ft i n th e snow. Bu ss
c la imed t o ha ve f ou nd fo otprints i n th e m el ti ng s nowfi ve d ays after t he attempte d kid napping that he iden tifi ed i n court as coming from an adult wearin g shoes and running —or at least

s tr i d i n g— d ow n th e h i l l

. H e a gr e e d w i th th e St a te that the fo otprints “w ere c ons i s ten t” w i th the gi rls ’ s tory.
¶7 After hearin g all the evi dence, the jury convicted Defendant of att empted kidn apping. He appeals.St a tev. Do ut re

20120944-CA 4 2014 UT App 192

ISS UES AND STANDARDS O F REVIEW
¶8 D efen da nt fi rs t argu es t ha t he w as un la w fu ll y de pri ved of hi s r i ghtto a tt e n d th e ju ry vi e w d u rin g h i s tr i a l

. D e fe n d ant contends that hi s t r ial couns el was ineffec tive for fai ling to object to conduc tin g the jury view i n Defendan t’s ab senc e and that t he tri al c ou rt pl ainl y erre d i n i ts ha nd ling o f the ma tter. A c la i m o f i neffec tive ass i stance o f counsel rais ed for t he fi rst t i me on appeal presents a questi on of law. State v. Alfat lawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 11, 153 P.3d 804. Normally, a clai m of plain err or requires a showing tha t “( i ) [a ]n error exi s ts ; (i i ) the error s hou ld ha ve b eenob vi ou s to the tr i al court; and (i i i ) the err or i s harmfu l.” St a tev. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993).
¶9 D efen da nt a ls o as s erts tha t hi s tri al c ou ns el w as i ne ffec ti ve for fail i ng to object to the St ate’s exper t wi tness on the gr ounds that the exper t lacked pro per qualifications an d that his testim ony vi ola t ed rul e 7 02 of

the Uta h Rul es of

Evi de nc e. Wh eth er De fendant’ s couns el was i neffec tive i n thi s reg ard presents a questi on of law. See Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 11.

AN AL YSIS
I. J uryVi ew
¶10 Wh i le the y m ay b e r ar e, j uryvi ew s of c ri me s c en es are exp li c i tly a uthori ze d u nd er th e Uta h Ru le s of Cri mina l P roc ed ure
. SeeU t a h R

. C r im. P. 1 7 (j ) ( “ W he n i n t h e o p i n io n o f t he co ur titis prop er f or the jury to vi ew the pl ac e i n w hi c h th e offe ns e i s al le ged to hav e been commi tte d . . . i t may or der them to be conducted

. . . to th e p la c e, w hi c h s ha llbe s hown to the m by so me pe rs on appoi nted by the court for that purpo se.”). G enerally, a criminal de fe nd an t ha s a c ons ti tu ti ona l ri ghtto be pre s en t du ri ng a llph as es of hi s or her tr i al, see Utah Const. art

. I, § 12; St a tev. Hub ba rd, 2002 UT 45, ¶ 33, 48 P.3d 953, although i t is not clear whether a si mple j ur y v ie w, wh e r e no e v ide nc e i s a d mit t e d a nd no t e st imo ny isSt a tev. Do ut re

3. Th e Sta te a rgu es tha t th i s w as al s o i nvi ted error onthe pa r t of Defendan t’s tr i al couns el. Seege ner a lly St a te v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201, 1220 (Utah 199 3 ) (e xplai ning that t he i nvited erro r doctr i ne prev ents a party from taking “advantag e of an err or commi tte d at tr i al when that party led the tr i al court into commi tting the err or ”). I f the r e wa s a ny e r r o r inv o l v e d wit h t he j ur y v ie w it se l f, the n it is qui te poss ibl e t ha t tr i al couns el i nvited i t by ag reeing to t he

c ond i t i o n s o f th e j u r y v i e w, a t t e n d i n g th e j u r y v i e w, a n d the n opting not to object t o anythin g that occurred duri ng the jury view

. How ever, be c au s e w e d ete rmine tha t D efen da nt w ai ved w ha teve r rights he may have had in that reg ard, we do not address the i ssu e of i nvi ted error.

20120944-CA 5 2014 UT App 192 given, meri ts the same prot ecti ons, s e e S tat e v. Scott, 541 P.2d 810, 810 (Utah 1975) (notin g that jury view s are di screti onary and that not hing i n U tahla w “gi ves the de fe nd an t or c ou ns el any ri ghtor even pr i vilege to be inc luded in the” jur y v i ew). See also Sn yder v. Massa chuse tts , 291 U.S. 97, 108–22 (1934) (holding that t he “Four teenth Amendment do e s not assure to a defendant the pri vi le ge to be pre s en t” at a jury vi eww he re n o w ords are s poke n becau se “[t]here i s nothi ng h e could do i f he were ther e, and almost nothin g he could gai n,” but i n all other ci rcums tances “the justi ce
or i njusti ce o f [ex clud i ng the defendant] must be det ermin ed i n the li ght of the whole r e cord”), overruled in part o n other grounds by Malloy v. Hogan , 3 78 U.S. 1 ( 19 64 ). Bu t eve n a s s um i ng, argu en do, tha t D efen da nt d i d h ave a c ons ti tu ti ona l ri ght to att en d th e ju ry’s vi s i t to th e cri me s c en e, thi s ri ghtc anbe val i dl y w ai ved . “ [F ]a i lu re by a cri minal def e ndantto invoke hi s ri ght t o be present . . . consti tutes a valid wai ver of that r i ght.” United States v. Gagnon , 470 U.S. 522, 529 (1985) (dealing wi th a defendant’s ri ght t o be present pursuant to r ule 43 of the Feder al Rule s o f Crim i nal Procedure). Th e s am e p ri nc i pl e a pp li es he re, an d w e c onc lu de tha t w ha t ev er ri ght D efen da nt ma y ha ve had to atten d th e ju ry vi eww as w ai ved when h e vo luntaril y state d that he wi shed to stay behi nd. 3

¶11 Defendan t knew the j ury v i ew was going to t ake place. The tr i al court and tr i al couns el di scu ssed s ever al options to ensure thatSt a tev. Do ut re

20120944-CA 6 2014 UT App 192 Defendan t would be able t o atte nd the jury viewi n a way that mini mi zed, as much as possi ble, any prej udi ce. Defendant not o nly fai led to assertany right to atte nd the j ur y v ie w, but he affirm a t iv e l y v o l un t e e r e d t o st a y be hin d

. U nd e r the cir cu ms t a nces, w e m us t c onc lu de tha t hi s w ai ver w as kno w i ng a nd volu nta ry. Thus, h e c annotnowc la i m p la i n e rror onthe pa rt of the tri al c ou rt fo r i ts ac c ep tan c e of

hi s val i d w ai ver.
¶12 Fu rthe rmo re, w e c onc lu de that Defen da nt’ s tri al c ou ns el

w as notde fi c i en t f or f ai ling t o i ns i s t, a gains t he r c li en t’s
c le arl y s tate d w i s he s , th at h e a tten d the jury vi ew
. To de mo ns trate ine ff e ct iv e a ss ist a nc e o f c o un se l, De fe nd a nt mu st sh o w t ha thi s trial

c ou ns el ’s “re pre s en tati on fel l b el owanobjectiv e s tan da rd of

reas o nablenes s,” see Stric kland v. Wa shington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and that he was prejudic ed there by, seeid . at 687. If the “defendant has fai led to prov e that hi s counsel had no concei vable tactic al basi s for hi s ac tions,” then we wi ll not consi der t rial

couns el’s repr esentation to be consti tutionally defi ci ent. See State v. C l a rk , 20 04 UT25 , ¶ 7

, 8 9 P .3 d 1 62 (inte rna l quo tati on m arks omi tte d).
¶13 In thisc a s e , w e c a n readi ly concei ve o f tacti cal and otherwi se reasonable bases for t rial co unsel’s deci si ons. To begin wi th, tr i al

c o unse l may h ave w i s el y c onc lu de d th at th e d an ger of the jury
c atching e vena gl i mp s e of D efen da nt b eing s ha c kle d a nd es c orted l ik e a n a l r e a d y -c o nv ict e d p r iso ne r o v e r wh e l me d the sc a nt be ne fit of hi s being present but si lent at t he j ur y view . Even if there was
s om e i ma gi nabl e w ay f or D efen da nt t o atte nd the jury vi ew
w i tho utvi s ibl e res traints, Defen da nt’ s tri al c ou ns el ma y al s o ha ve been worried about how hi s body language a t the scene c ould be construed or mi scons tr ued by attent i ve juror s. And she m ay well ha ve fel t th at s he w ou ld be be tter ab le to keep a n e ye onthe jurors and th e i r p ol i c e e s c or t i f s h e w a s n ota l s o m on i to rin g D e fe ndant

an d fi el ding h i s qu es ti ons or c om me nts

. Fina ll y, tri al c ou ns el, l i ke the tr i al court, may hav e accepted Defendant’s knowi ng and volu nta ry w ai ver as s i nc ere a nd s en s ibl e a nd the ref ore e le c ted not to rai s e a n objec ti o n o ut o f ade s i re to “ ad van c e th e l egi ti ma teSt a tev. Do ut re

4. Whi le Defendan t primari ly challenges thi s aspect of the tr i al as part of hi s comprehens i ve at tack on t he jury view, i t mor e logicall y fi ts as pa rt of

hi s c ha ll en ge to tri al c ou ns el ’s ha nd ling o f B us s ’s tes ti mo ny.

20120944-CA 7 2014 UT App 192 i n te re s ts of” h e r c l i e nt. SeeUtah S tandards of Professi onali sm & Ci vili ty 1. Because there is a concei vable tactic al basi s for tr i al

co un se l ’ s a ct io ns , we co nc l u d e tha tsh e wa s n o tine ff e ct iv e in t his reg ard.

II. Ex pertTesti mony
¶14 D efen da nt n ext p oints to a number of prob le ms w i th De t e ct iv e B us s t e st ify ing a s a n e x p e r twit ne ss a nd a ss e r t s t ha this tri al c ou nse l’ s fa i lu re to p rope rly ob jec t c ons ti tu ted i ne ffec ti ve
as s i s tan c e of c ou ns el . Ag ain, to pre vai l ona c la i m o f ine ffec ti ve assi stance of coun sel, a defend ant must sh ow, fir st, that t rial

c ou ns el ’s “re pre s en tati on fel l b el owanobjec tive st an da rd of reasonableness,” Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and second, that the defendant was p rej udi ced thereby, id . at 687. W e co nc l ud e tha tDe fe nd a nt ’ s t r ia l co un se l wa s in e ff e ct iv e in fa i ling t o objec t to B us s ’s tes ti mo ny a nd tha t th i s fa i lu re p reju di c ed D efen da nt.

A. Ineffecti veness
¶15 On a pp ea l, D efen da nt d i rec ts ou r atte nti on t o a numbe r of p r o bl e ms wit h D e t e ct iv e B us s’ s t e st imo ny : (1 ) B us s p a r t icip a t e d in the jury vi ewas the jury’ s es c ort an d na rrator b ef ore b eing c al le d

as a wi tness, (2) the State di d not pr ov i de the re qui red pr i or notic e

4 tha t Bu s s w as going t o gi ve ex pe rt tes ti mo ny, (3 ) B us s w as not qu al i fi ed to gi ve ex pe rt tes ti mo nya n d h i s m e th o d s w e re u nre li ab le , an d (4 ) Bu s s ’s tes ti mo ny i mp rope rly vouche d for the c red ibi li ty of other wi tnesses.
¶16 Fi rs t, i t w as s i gni fi c an t tha t Bu s s w as a w i tne s s an d th at on the da y he tes ti fi ed , he al s o s erved as the c ou rt- ap pointe d gu i de fo rSt a tev. Do ut re

5. We c i te Jones v. Commonwealth , 3 1 7 S

. E .2d 482 (Va. 1984) , only becau se i t a rt i cu l a te s ac om m on-sens e princ i ple and not becaus e we ha ve d ete rmine d th at tri al c ou ns el mu s t b e a w are of , and ad he re to, the j uri sprudenc e of ot her j uri sdi cti ons.
6. Al tern ati vel y, tri al c o unsels hou ld ha ve objec ted to Bu s s ’s serving as the jury ’s esc or t and narr ator duri ng the j ury v i ew.

20120944-CA 8 2014 UT App 192 the j ury view . Whi le we have already deter mined that Defendant

w ai ved hi s ri ghtto att en d the j ury vi ewan d th at th e ju ry vi ew appears to hav e been conduc ted inan other wi se unobjecti onable

ma nn er, tri al c ou ns el s hou ld ha ve b eens en s i ti ve to the i mp res s i on thi s unusu al si tuation might hav e made o n t he jury . Even when a defendant has wai ved his right to atte nd a jury view, there should not be “permi tte d any i rr egularity

. . . [that] mi ght t end to influenc e the tr i er o f fac t.” Jones v. C ommonwealth , 317 S.E.2d 482, 485 (Va. 1984). Thi s certai nly seems to be such an i rr egularity, part i cularly

5 be c au s e th e tri al c ou rt tol d t he jury tha t “[ n] one of the w i tne s s es
are going t o b e” at th e jury vi ew
. Bu s s w as, how ever, pe rmi tted to be at the j ury v i ew, and w as the only wi tness s o privi leged.
¶17 The Stat e asked B us s d uring di rect ex aminati on, “[I]s vis ibi li ty diff e r e nt today than i t was on February 1st?” Bus s was al lo w ed to an s w er th i s qu es ti on b y referen c i ng h owthings appeared at t he sc ene ea r l ie r t hat day durin g the j ury v i ew. He the n e xpl aine d th e l oc ati on of e ven ts tha t s up porte d th e Sta te’s the ory of

the c as e, even t ho ug h h e h ad s erved as the c ou rtappoi nted guid e who was su p p o sed to im partially poi nt out la nd ma rks fo r the be ne fi t of the jurors du ri ng the jury vi ew . Al l of thi s ha d th e pr o bable effe c t of bo ls tering h i s c red ibi li ty. Con s i de ri ng the pote nti al fo r co nfus i on tha t hi s du al role s presented, tr i al couns el should h ave o bjected to B us s’s testi mony on those g ro unds

. 6

¶18 Second, the Stat e fai led to gi ve Defendant notic e that i t was g o ing t o c al l a n e xpe rt w i tne s s , a s requi red byUta h C ode s ec ti on 77-17-13. SeeUt a hC od e Ann
. § 7 7

- 1 7

- 1 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( L e xi s N e xi s 2012)St a tev. Do ut re

7. Bu s s ’s work as anOgde n C i ty po li c e d ete c ti ve en tai le d i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r i m a r i l y o f c a s e s i n v o l v i n g d o m e s t i c v i o l e nc e or chil dren. Hi s expert i se in tracking was not acqui red in the di sch arg e of these responsibi li ties but as a vo lunteer member of the Uta h Co unty Sheri ff’s Offi c e Sea rc h a nd Res c ue tea m. Ogde n, of

c ou rs e, i s i n W eb er Co un ty, n ot Uta h C ou nty

.

20120944-CA 9 2014 UT App 192 (requi ring any p art y intendi ng to use an expert wi tness in a felony case to give “notic e to the opposi ng party as soo n as practi cable b ut not less than 30 days befor e tr i al or 10 day s bef or e the hearing”). The St a t e a r gues that becaus e Buss i s an emp loyee of a politi cal sub di vis i on of the stat e, i t should no t be held to the t hi rt y-day notic e requirement i n subsec tion (1) (a), bu t instead sh ould be required only to give “reasonable notic e” and make i ts wi tness “availab l e to c oo p e rat i vely consu lt” wi th Defendant. See id. § 77-17- 13 (6 ). Th e n oti c e ex c ep ti on for anexp ert w i tne s s w ho i s a s tate employee, contained in subsec tio n (6 ), most likely r efers to an exper t wi tn e s s w h o i s te s ti fyin g i n h i s or h e r offi c i a l ro l e a s a govern me nt e mp loye e a nd notme rel y a govern me nt e mp loye e
w ho a ls o ha pp en s to b e a n exp ert on a s ubjec t ou ts i de the s c ope of hi s or he r offi c i al w ork, a s i s the c as e h ere. Bu t eveni f s ub s ec ti on 7 (6 ) a pp li es to Bu s s , s uch th at th e th i rty- da y no ti c e r e qu i rem en t doe s
no ta p p l y , the S t a t e f a i l e d t o g iv e e v e n r e a so na bl e no t ice a nd d id not make Buss avai lable to Defendan t to cooper atively consult, as i s requi red bythe rul e. Infa c t, t he State di d n ot gi ve D efen da nt a
w i tne s s li s t u nti l th ree b us i ne s s da ys be fo re the tri al . Thi s w as not a reasonable amount of time f orD e fe n d a n t t o c ooperatively consult wi th Buss or to call a rebuttal exper t wi tness. Trial c ounsel s hould ha ve objec ted to Bus s ’s tes ti mo ny for l ac k of not i c e a nd as ked fo r
a conti nuanc e or another appropr i ate r emedy. Seeid

. § 77-17-13( 4).
¶19 Thi rd, B uss’s testi mony di d not meet t he threshold requi rem en ts fo r exp ert te s ti mo ny und er rule 70 2 of the UtahRu le s of Eviden c e
. T ri a l ju d ge s a re re qu i re d b y r u l e 7 0 2 to “ s c re e nou t
unrel i ab le exp er tt est imony .” Ut ah R . E v id. 70 2 advi s ory c om mi ttee not e. Spe c i al i ze d know le dge , su c h as trac king, c an be the ba s i s ofSt a tev. Do ut re

20120944-CA 10 2014 UT App 192 exper t te sti mony only if there is a threshold showing t hat the princ i pl es or m eth ods tha t ar e und erlying the tes ti mo ny ( 1) are reliab le, (2) are based on suffi ci ent f acts, and ( 3) have been reliab ly

a p p l i ed to t he facts. SeeUt a hR. E vi d

. 7 0 2 ( b )

. Inth i s c a s e , B uss tes ti fi ed tha t he w as a fo ur- yea r vete ran of the Uta h County S he r iff ’ s O ff ice S e a r cha nd R e sc ue t e a m a nd ha d t r a in ing in tr acki ng people. Whil e he di d not say t hat he had actual experienc e
w i th t rac ki ng p eop le , th e tri al c ou rt s eem s , a t fi rst blus h, to h ave
c onc lu de d th at B us s ha d ma de a “ ba s i cfo un da ti ona l s how i ng” of reliab i li ty for hi s testim ony to b e admi ssi ble. See id. R. 7 02 ad vi s ory commi tte e note. Ho wever, when Bus s be g an to t esti fy, i t should ha ve b eeni mm ed i ate ly a pp are nt to tri al c ou ns el tha t the princ i pl es
an d me tho ds un de rlying hi s tes ti mo ny w ere not (1 ) r el iabl e, (2) b ased on su ffi ci ent facts or data, o r (3) reliab ly a p p li ed to t he facts of the cas e. See id. R. 702(b).
¶20 Buss testifi ed that he v i si ted the scene fi ve d a y s a fter t he alleged crim e and i denti fi ed mar k s in the snow as foot prin ts. He sai d the foot prin ts were sever al days old, that t hey were made by

a n a dult going downhi ll, and that i t was something more than a “c a s u a l w a l k. ” D u rin g c ro s s - e xa m i n a ti on , B u s s i n s i s te d th a t the foot prin ts could not have been made by a large chi ld wear i ng boot s—as opposed to an adult weari ng ten nis sh oes as he clai med—bec ause he “co mp a r ed i t r elative to [hi s] s i ze shoe and the pa tternw as nota s li ding pattern .” Th i s tes ti mo ny s eem s to pushthe li mi ts of Buss ’s questi onable quali ficati on as a tracking exper t

. Addi tionally, the fact that Buss di d not ex amine the

un s ecured s c en e u nti l s evera l d ays la ter, after oth ers c ou ld ha ve
w al ked thro ugh th e s now, a nd after the su n h ad me lte d th e s now complet e l y from some areas of the hill, d raws into question the suffi ci ency of the facts on whi ch Bu ss b ased his opi ni on and the reliab i li ty o f hi s methods as appli ed to t hose facts.
¶21 Th e Sta te a rgu es tha t i t w as a reaso nab le tri al s trate gy to ad dre s s the s e ru le 70 2 d efec ts du ri ng c ros s -e xam i na ti on a nd not es that t he U nit ed St ates Supreme Co urt has held that in“many ins t a nc e s c r o ss -e x a min a t io n wil l be su ff icie nt t o e x p o se d e fe ct s inSt a tev. Do ut re

20120944-CA 11 2014 UT App 192 an expert ’s presentation.” Ha rri ngt o n v. Rich te r, 131 S. Ct . 770, 791 (2 01 1) . Whi le i t i s tru e that ex po s i ng the de fe c ts i n a n e xpe rt’s t e st imo ny d ur ing cr o ss -e x a min a t io n c a n b e a so un d s t r a t e g y in
some cas es, we c annot c oncei ve of a sound basi s for fai ling to object on rule 702 gr ounds in thi s case when i t should have been obvious, before t he bulk of Bus s’s testi mony was gi v e n, t ha t it lacked the threshold r eli abi li ty required by rule 702. Accordi ngly, ev en i f the tr i al court would not hav e sus tain ed t he objection on notice gr ounds that di li gent t rial c ounsel s hould have i nterpo sed, trial

couns el was remi ss f or not o bjectin g to Buss ’s testim ony o n the grou nd s of

un rel i ab i li ty.
¶22 Four th, and finally, Defendan t clai ms that Buss i mproper ly

vo uch ed for t he ver aci ty o f t he girls’ testi mony and that his tr i al

co un se l wa s in e ff e ct iv e fo r f a ilin gt o o bj e ct t o tha ta sp e ct o f h is tes ti mo ny. Ingen era l, rul e 608 of the Uta h Rul es of Evi de nc e d oes not allow a wi tness to bolster the testimony of another wi tness based on s peci fi c inci dents or t o offe r gener al opi ni ons about credibi li ty when the ot her wi tness’s reputation f or tr uthfuln ess h as not been att acked. SeeUtah R. Ev i d. 6 0 8

. I nd eed, “i nsofar as the exp ert te s ti mo ny m ay b e cha rac t e r i z e d a s ‘ b ols tering’ or ‘vou c hing’ fo r the tes ti mo ny o f the c hi ld w i tne s s ’s c red ibi li ty re g ar di ng a particu lar ev ent, it [i s] clearly impermi ssi ble.” State v. Hoyt

, 806 P .2 d 2 04, 2 11 (U tahCt. Ap p. 19 91 ). Inthe ins tan t c as e, the State
as ked Bu s s , “ [W ]a s the terra in t hat y ou ob s erved an d th e p ri nts that y ou observ ed consi stent wi th what wa s being told t o yo u by the girls?” H e responded, “They were.” While B us s could testify about hi s analysi s of the foot prin t ev i dence and h i s investigati on, the fi nal inferential s tep of det e r mining the consi stency of the

e v ide nc e p r e se nt e d wit h t he t e st imo ny o f p a r t icu l a r wit ne ss e s is ri ght ly th e p rovi nc e of the jury. Th i s i s ani mp ortan t distinct ion “d esi gne d to p reven t th e f ac t- find er from excha nging c om mo n
s en s e f or rel i an c e onthe i mp ri ma tu r of a ti tle d an d l ea rne d e xpe rt wi tness.” Id

. ¶23 We c anc onc ei ve, how ever, of a re as onabl e ta c ti c al ba s i s fo r tr i al couns el’s decis i on to forg o an o bjection t o the S tate ’s questi on.St a tev. Do ut re

20120944-CA 12 2014 UT App 192 See St a tev. Cla rk

, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 7, 8 9 P. 3 d 162. For i nstance, tri al

c ou ns el ma y hav e c ons i de red Bu s s ’s i ntru s i on into the jury’ s domai n as m i ni mal and u ltim a tely har mless consi dering the

en ti rety of hi s tes ti mo ny. Th eref ore, s he ma y ha ve w i s el y s urm i s ed tha t objec ting t o th e que s ti on m i ghtonly un de rline the as s erti on i n s te a d of

d i s p e l l i n g i t inth e m i n d s of th e ju ro rs. S e e S tate v. Ott, 20 10 UT 1, ¶ 39 , 24 7 P .3 d 35 4 (“ [A ]vo i da nc e of dra w i ng the jury’ s
a t t e nt io n t o ce r t a in f a ct s o r o v e r -e mp ha siz ing a sp e ct s o f t he fa ct s is a well recognized tri al strate gy.”). Thus, w e cannot conclu de that De fe nd a nt ’ s t r ia l co un se l wa s in e ff e ct iv e fo r fa ilin gt o o bj e ct t o this pa rt of Bu s s ’s tes ti mo ny.
¶24 Given the for ego i ng pro blems wi th Buss ’s testim ony, t rial

c ou ns el s houl d h ave rai s ed any ava i labl e n on- fu ti le objec ti ons or pursued s o me o t her r easonable alternative to keep t he evidenc e out. Instead, trial couns el fai led to o bject to the irregularity o f Bus s acti ng as both a gui de duri ng the j ury vi ew and the State’ s wi tness on the s am e d ay of

tri al . T ri al c ou ns el fa i le d to o bje c t to th e Sta te’s lack of notic e of i ts i ntent t o call Bus s as anexper t wi tness and there by lost the o pport uni ty t o pre pare for hi s te st imony. And, pe rha ps be c au s e of

the la c k of

ad equa te prep ara ti on to me et B us s ’s exp ert te s ti mo ny, tri al c ou ns el fa i le d to g r asp the prob le ms w i th the tes ti mo ny a nd to objec t to i t as unr eli ab le un de r rul e 7 02 . If

c l e a r l y i n a d m i s s ab l e e v i d e n c e h a s n o c o n c e i v ab l e b e n e fi tt o a defendant, the fai lure to object t o it on nonfriv o l ous gro unds cannot or di naril y be consi dered a r easonable trial s tr ateg y. See id. ¶ 38. We conclude that, wi th the o ne ex ce p t io n noted, t hese objections w ould have been well take n, and w e can c oncei ve o f no reasonable alter nati ve to rai sing them. We therefore conclu de that tr i al couns el’s perfor manc e was defi ci ent inthi s regar d.

B. Prejudic e
¶25 Ne xt, w e c ons i de r w he the r tri al c ou ns el ’s i ne ffec ti ve assi stance harmed D efendant in a way that unde r min e s o ur confi dence in the ver di ct. See S trickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 68 7 ( 19 84 ). D efen da nt a rgu es tha t th e ju ry’s verd ic t hinge d onSt a tev. Do ut re

20120944-CA 13 2014 UT App 192 whether the j ury believed the girls’ acc ounts—that Defendant ran d o wnthe hil l, a t t e mp t e d t o k idn a p the g ir l, a nd the n r a n a wa y in a di fferent di rection—or Defendant’s explanation—that he sawa gi rl f al l i n th e m u d , w a l k e d a fe w fe e t o v e r t o h e l p h e r , a n d the n le ft . In de ed , th e p ho t ograp hs of the fo otprints an d B us s ’s i nterpr etat i on of tho se footpr i nts were the only no nw it ness evidenc e presented attr i al that support ed the St ate’s ver si on of the stor y ov er Defendant’s ver si on. And this was a s ig nific ant aspect of the State ’s c as e.
¶26 During closing arg uments, the S tate emphas i zed the i mport ance of the footpr i nt eviden ce. Referring to o ne of the photo gr a p h s B u s s to ok, th e p ro s e c u to r s a i d , “ [ A] s w e s e e i n[the ph o t o g r a p h ] th a t ’ s b e e ns h o w nt o y o u p r e v i o u s l y , h e r a na s the y approached. He ran away

. . . and escaped that way.” The Stat e also acknowledged some of the pro blems wit h the girls’ acc ounts. “When we’re deali ng wi th yo ung g irls, i t’s i mport ant—or young k ids o f a ny a g e , it ’ s im p o r t a n t

. . . t h a ty o u l o o ka te v e r y thin gif what they’r e tellin g yo u m a kes sens e. And you loo k for consi stency i n the statements.” Defendant’s t r i al couns el, duri ng her closi ng arg ument, poin ted out a numb er of i nconsi stenci es i n t he g ir ls’

s tori es . Onreb ut tal, th e Sta te e mp ha s i ze d th e i mp ortan c e of Bu s s ’s tes ti mo ny as i t rel ate d to the c red ibi li ty of the gi rls . “ [A ]g ain, w he n you de al w i th li ttle ki ds tha t’s not going to be the mo s t rel i ab le . So what di d [Bus s] do? H e to ok t hem to the scene . . . . That’s how w e getcorr obor ation . . . .” Th e St ate continu ed:

You heard about [Bus s] testi fyi ng about tho se foot prin ts. I think that i s cri tic al becau se the foot prin ts go o ne way. Th ey don’t ret urn, and that aga i n c orrob orate s w ha t th e gi rls s ai d; tha t he di dn ’t go back t he same w ay thathe came fro m. There ’s one set of adult-si zed foot prin ts, just coin ci dently thro ugh th e s am e a rea tha t th e gi rls s ai d h e c am e. What the o ffi cer is l o oking for is corr obor ation. . . . And you heard himsay that yes, ever ything that heSt a tev. Do ut re

20120944-CA 14 2014 UT App 192 observe d at the scene was consi stent wit h what the girls told hi m. And he also said that v i si bi li ty was much di fferen t

. . . tha n i t i s toda y. You saw t he pi c tu res where yo u could s ee people at t he top o f the hi ll becau se there ar e no leaves. Today I agr ee the vis ibi li ty is n ot g ood at all becau se of the leaves, but you he ard Offi c er B us s s ay i t w as mu c h di ffe ren t, and y o u se e e v ide nc e of that in those photo gr aphs. . . . Wh enw e p uti t i nto c ont ext, the s e gi rls w ere
c ons i s ten t. .

. . [Y ]o u h ea rd from al l of the m, an d you heard corr obor ation from Offi cer Buss that he r an away from this

. We have no bet ter i ndi cator of gui lt than someone’s acti ons after t hey’r e confronted . . . .
¶27 Ba s ed on the fo regoing, we rea di ly c onc lu de tha t th e Sta te relied heavi ly on Buss ’s testim ony. If Defendant’s trial c ounsel had objec ted to i ts ad mi s s ibi li ty, or a t le as t mo ved fo r a c ont i nu an c e to be tter p rep are to ref

ut e th e te s ti mo ny, the n the re w ou ld ha ve b een
a re as onabl e l i kel i hoo d of a m or e f a v o r ab l e o u t c om e f or D efen da nt.

CON CL USION
¶28 D efen da nt w ai ved w hateve r ri ghthe ma y ha ve h ad to atte nd the j ury v i ew wh en he volunteer ed i n open court t o stay be hind . H i s tri al c ou ns el w as no t in effe c ti ve f or res pe c ti ng h er cl ie nt ’ s l e g it ima t e wis he s inthis r e g a r d , no r wa s t he t r i a l c o u r t in error f or ac c ep ti ng D efen da nt’ s w ai ver.
¶29 Buss ’s experttestim ony and tri al couns el’s response to t hat tes ti mo ny w ere p rob le ma ti cfo r a numbe r of rea s ons . T ri al c ou ns el was d efi ci ent for fai li ng to object to the i rr egularity of Buss ac tin g both as the court-appointed gui de duri ng the j ur y v ie w a nd as a wi tness for the St ate once back at the court house. Tri al couns el wasSt a tev. Do ut re

20120944-CA 15 2014 UT App 192 al s o de fi c i en t f or f ai ling t o objec t to th e Sta te’s fa i lu re to gi ve reasonable prior not i ce of Bus s’s ex p e r t te sti mony. And tr i al

couns el sho ul d have obj ected to Buss ’s testim ony as unreli able

un de r rul e 7 02 of

the Uta h Rul es of

Evi de nc e. Bec au s e th e Sta te relied s o he a v ily on Buss’s testim ony, we conclude that trial

couns el’s defi ci ent perfo rm a nce harmed Defendant, and our confi dence in the ver di ct i s un dermi ned. A ccordi ngly, we reve rse D efen da nt’ s c onvi c ti on a nd rem an d f or a n ewtri al or s uch othe r proc eed i ngs as ma y no w be ap prop ri ate

.