Can ineffective assistance claims succeed without showing prejudice? State v. Hatch Explained

In State v. Hatch, the Utah Court of Appeals reinforced the critical importance of demonstrating prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel claims, affirming convictions despite multiple alleged attorney errors.

Background and Facts

Chad Michael Hatch was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, two counts of sodomy on a child, and attempted aggravated sexual abuse – all involving his seven-year-old stepdaughter. The trial included testimony about various sexual acts and an incident where Hatch showed the victim pornographic magazines. One count related to the magazines was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds during trial, but the jury had already heard the underlying evidence.

Key Legal Issues

Hatch raised five ineffective assistance claims: (1) counsel’s failure to raise the statute of limitations defense earlier; (2) failure to object to the jury instruction explaining the dismissed count; (3) failure to ensure Hatch’s presence during all proceedings; (4) failure to move for merger of counts; and (5) failure to move for directed verdict on insufficient evidence. He also challenged the trial court’s exclusion of impeachment testimony about the victim’s alleged false accusations against her brother.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the familiar Strickland standard, requiring both deficient performance and prejudice. Critically, the court found that even assuming counsel performed deficiently, Hatch could not demonstrate prejudice. The jury heard “far more inflammatory and graphic testimony” about other sexual acts than the dismissed count’s evidence about magazines. The court noted that curative instructions and counsel’s closing argument directing jurors to disregard the dismissed count evidence minimized any potential prejudice.

Regarding Hatch’s claimed absence from proceedings, the court found the record unclear about whether he was actually absent during jury selection, but more importantly, Hatch failed to show any actually biased juror sat on the jury. For the merger claim, the court determined aggravated sexual abuse of a child is not a lesser included offense of sodomy on a child, making any merger motion futile.

Practice Implications

This case demonstrates that even multiple attorney errors may not warrant reversal without concrete evidence of prejudice. Practitioners should focus on showing how alleged deficient performance actually affected the outcome, rather than merely cataloging attorney missteps. The decision also reinforces that preservation requirements apply even to constitutional claims – defendants cannot bypass preservation rules by raising issues in post-trial motions that could have been raised during trial.