When does mishandling rape shield evidence constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? State v. Marchet Explained

In State v. Marchet, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial counsel’s failure to properly handle rape shield evidence under Utah Rule of Evidence 412 constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The case provides important guidance for practitioners handling sexual assault cases involving potential Rule 412(b) evidence.

Background and Facts

Marchet was convicted of raping S.W. outside a Salt Lake City nightclub. During the forensic examination, a nurse observed redness around S.W.’s vaginal opening consistent with nonconsensual sex. At trial, the State introduced prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b) from two other women who testified about similar sexual assaults by Marchet. Marchet’s trial counsel discovered during cross-examination that S.W. had engaged in sexual activity within 72 hours of the incident but failed to seek timely admission of this evidence under Rule 412(b) as an alternative explanation for the physical evidence.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether counsel’s mishandling of Rule 412(b) evidence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard, and (2) whether the trial court properly admitted the prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying the two-prong Strickland test, the court found that even if counsel’s performance was deficient, Marchet could not demonstrate prejudice. The court emphasized that S.W.’s injury was “a relatively minor aspect of the State’s case.” The nurse testified she would have concluded rape occurred even without injury, based on S.W.’s distressed behavior. Other substantial evidence included Marchet’s admission to having sex with S.W., his “Kobe Bryant” comment, and multiple witnesses who testified to S.W.’s immediate distress and report of sexual assault.

Regarding the Rule 404(b) evidence, the court affirmed the trial court’s admission of testimony from the two other victims, finding the three-step analysis was properly conducted to establish noncharacter purposes, relevance, and that probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Practice Implications

This case underscores the critical importance of thorough pretrial preparation in sexual assault cases. Counsel must carefully review all forensic evidence and file appropriate pretrial motions under Rule 412(c) when seeking to introduce evidence of a victim’s sexual behavior. The decision also demonstrates that even significant procedural errors may not warrant reversal if the overall evidence of guilt is substantial enough that the excluded evidence would not have reasonably affected the outcome.