Utah Court of Appeals
When does failure to call an expert witness constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? State v. Willey Explained
Summary
Defendant Willey, an elementary school teacher, was convicted of sexual abuse of a fourth-grade student after a second trial (the first ended in a hung jury). He appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney’s failure to call a memory expert to support a memory confabulation defense. The court affirmed after a rule 23B evidentiary hearing.
Analysis
In State v. Willey, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial counsel’s decision not to call a memory expert in a child sexual abuse case constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The case provides important guidance on the boundaries between strategic decisions and deficient performance.
Background and Facts
Willey, an elementary school teacher, was convicted of sexually abusing a fourth-grade student. The abuse allegedly occurred in 1993-1994 but was not reported until over a decade later. After the first trial resulted in a hung jury, Willey was convicted at the second trial. Defense counsel pursued a memory confabulation defense, arguing that the victim’s decade-old memory had distorted an innocent touch into a sexual one.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a memory expert to testify about memory confabulation. Willey sought a rule 23B hearing to develop the factual record regarding counsel’s performance. The broader question involved the distinction between strategic decisions and constitutionally deficient performance under the Strickland standard.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed after finding that Willey failed to adequately marshal the evidence supporting the district court’s factual findings. Trial counsel had consulted with a memory expert before trial and made a strategic decision not to call the expert because: (1) substantial corroborating evidence from classmates and school records undermined the memory confabulation defense, (2) the expert could potentially strengthen the prosecution’s case, and (3) calling the expert might open the door to additional harmful evidence.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that counsel’s strategic decisions enjoy a strong presumption of reasonableness. The case also demonstrates the critical importance of thoroughly marshaling supporting evidence when challenging factual findings on appeal. Practitioners should carefully document their strategic reasoning regarding expert witnesses to defend against later ineffectiveness claims.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Willey
Citation
2011 UT App 23
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20071021-CA
Date Decided
January 27, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Trial counsel’s decision not to call a memory expert witness in a child sexual abuse case constituted sound trial strategy rather than ineffective assistance where counsel reasonably concluded the expert testimony could be detrimental to the defense.
Standard of Review
Deference to district court’s findings of fact from rule 23B hearing; clear error standard for marshaling requirement
Practice Tip
When challenging factual findings from a rule 23B hearing, appellants must thoroughly marshal all evidence supporting the challenged findings rather than simply reasserting their trial position.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.