Opinion ID: 866606
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffectiveness of Counsel and Plain Error

Text: ¶33 In light of our conclusion that the federal Constitution does not preclude the admission of victim impact testimony in noncapital cases, there is no basis on which we could hold that defense counsel’s failure to object to the testimony constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Nor, obviously, can we deem the trial court’s admission of such evidence plain error. ¶34 Mr. Mateos-Martinez does advance general arguments in his brief regarding the relevance of the testimony and its highly inflammatory character, citing Utah Code section 77-38-4(4)-(5) (The “court shall have the right to limit any victim’s statement to matters that are relevant to the proceeding” and not “disruptive.”). However, his only claims in this regard relate to his position that federal constitutional law prohibits such evidence; they do not appear to advance a separate attack on the use of this evidence. ¶35 As noted above, we reject Mr. Mateos-Martinez’s Eighth Amendment claims today. Evidentiary, statutory, or other constitutional problems that may exist with victim impact testimony of this kind in noncapital cases are open questions for another day.