What happens when trial counsel fails to request clarifying jury instructions? State v. Ray Explained

In State v. Ray, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical issue affecting criminal defense practice: the consequences of failing to request jury instructions that define vague statutory language with specific judicial meanings.

Background and Facts

Ray, a 28-year-old law student, developed an inappropriate relationship with a 15-year-old girl through text messages. During a visit to Utah, they engaged in sexual conduct at Ray’s hotel. Ray was charged with multiple sexual offenses. The jury convicted him of forcible sexual abuse but acquitted on object rape and deadlocked on forcible sodomy charges. Notably, the victim’s testimony contained significant inconsistencies that defense counsel effectively highlighted at trial.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction defining “indecent liberties” as used in Utah Code § 76-5-404(1) constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The forcible sexual abuse statute criminalizes touching specific body parts “or otherwise takes indecent liberties with another.” Without judicial definition, this phrase is unconstitutionally vague.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found both prongs of the Strickland test satisfied. First, counsel’s performance was objectively deficient because the phrase “indecent liberties” requires judicial definition to avoid constitutional vagueness. Utah courts have narrowly defined it as “activities of the same magnitude of gravity as [those] specifically described in the statute.” Second, prejudice existed because the jury likely convicted based on moral disapproval of Ray’s conduct rather than the narrow legal standard, especially given the victim’s credibility issues and the jury’s mixed verdicts on other charges.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of requesting clarifying jury instructions for statutory terms with specific judicial definitions. Defense counsel must either request instructions defining vague phrases or seek removal of such language from jury instructions. The court noted that Model Utah Jury Instruction CR1601 provides the proper definition. Additionally, the court distinguished between witness credibility issues and the rare “inherent improbability” doctrine from State v. Robbins, emphasizing that inconsistent testimony creates credibility questions for juries, not grounds for reversal.