Court Opinion

ID: 9622117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:12:13.769507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:13.551797
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(concurring in the result):
I concur in affirming defendant’s conviction and in much of what is said in the main opinion. I do not agree that the statements treated in footnote 4 were properly admitted as “background information” on “how the charges against Morgan came forward.” Utah R. Evid. 404(b) does not include a “background information” exception to the general proscription against “prior bad acts” testimony. I have some concern that if such an exception were recognized judicially and given much play, it could effectively gut the general rule. I am persuaded, however, that admission of this testimony was harmless in this case, especially in light of the wealth of other extraneous information that came in without defense objection and apparently pursuant to defense strategy to portray M. as an unbelievable teller of tall tales.
I likewise have considerable trepidation about the discussion under the heading “Admissibility of Hearsay,” but also find admission of the statements treated there to be harmless, essentially for the same reason.
I also wish to add a comment about the argument referred to in footnote five of the main opinion. In urging us to view defense counsel’s failures to object as part of his deliberate strategy rather than as negligent oversight, the state called our attention to the fine reputation and considerable experience of Morgan’s trial counsel, in effect asking us to presume — even more vigorously than we usually do — that his trial decisions were well thought-out and pursuant to sound strategy, no matter how poorly the strategy ultimately fared.
There is at least some basis in Utah law for considering counsel’s general perform-anee in evaluating the adequacy of counsel’s performance in the case at hand. Although the notion seems not to have been given much life in subsequent cases, in Codianna v. Morris, 660 P.2d 1101 (Utah 1983), a pre-Strickland case which is nevertheless often still cited,1 the Court noted that “[t]he objective element [of effective assistance] is measured both by general ability or experience and by performance in the defense of a particular case.” Id. at 1109.
For two reasons, I think the entire focus should be on counsel’s performance in the particular case. First, if the appellate court should take positive note of a particularly good reputation, it would seem to follow that some negative inference should be drawn about the performance at trial of an attorney with a lousy general reputation or an attorney with little experience. This is problematic enough, but what do we do with the significant number of attorneys about whom we have no reliable sense of general reputation or skill, one way or the other? Competing testimonials as to general reputation, surfacing for the first time on appeal, would not be welcome additions to our consideration of ineffective assistance claims.
Second, as I previously had occasion to observe, “[a] good overall reputation by counsel is no substitute for careful inquiry by the court since there is no guaranty even an excellent attorney, especially a very busy one, has not botched a particular case.” State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270, 273 n. 1 (Utah App.1987).
In short, proper evaluation of whether counsel’s performance in a particular case was objectively deficient should be undertaken free of considerations of reputation and experience and other such subjective measures. The performance of both the dean of the defense bar and the recent graduate trying his or her first criminal case should be measured against the same *1213objective standard: Was the attorney’s performance within “the wide range of professionally competent assistance,” due regard being had for the “strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate assistance and exercised ‘reasonable professional judgment!]?]’ ” State v. Frame, 723 P.2d 401, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). That process is improperly skewed at both extremes if counsel’s reputation generally is jimmied into the equation.

. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court adopted the now widely used test for evaluating ineffective assistance claims. That test was first expressly employed by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Frame, 723 P.2d 401 (Utah 1986) (per curiam), an opinion in which Codianna was also cited. Id. at 405.