Opinion ID: 1366656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Juror-Witness Contact

Text: During the penalty hearing, a juror conversed briefly with a prosecution witness. Parsons contends that his counsel's failure to interrogate both the juror and the witness and to preserve the issue for direct appeal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. Parsons raised this issue on direct appeal, arguing that the juror-witness contact tainted the jury. We dismissed this argument, refusing to allow Parsons to vacate his sentence by alleging on appeal prejudicial error that he had affirmatively, knowingly, and intentionally waived at the sentencing proceeding. State v. Parsons, 781 P.2d 1275, 1285 (Utah 1989). More importantly, however, we concluded that [e]ven analyzing the facts under the standards provided in State v. Pike, 712 P.2d 277, 279-81 (Utah 1985), we could find no error.  Id. (emphasis added). Because no error resulted from the juror's contact with the prosecution witness, counsel's failure to interrogate the witness cannot be deemed ineffective assistance. Codianna v. Morris, 660 P.2d 1101, 1109 (Utah 1983) (The failure of counsel to make motions or objections which would be futile if raised does not constitute ineffective assistance.).