Utah Court of Appeals
Can additional testimony constitute inconsistent statements for impeachment purposes? State v. Collier Explained
Summary
Kelly Collier was convicted of sexual battery for groping a convenience store worker and attempted lewdness involving a child after violating his plea in abeyance agreement. Collier challenged both convictions, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to impeach the victim with preliminary hearing testimony and for not calling his partner as a witness.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Collier, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to impeach a witness with preliminary hearing testimony that allegedly contradicted trial testimony.
Background and Facts
Kelly Collier was convicted of sexual battery for groping a convenience store worker on Christmas Day 2017. At the preliminary hearing, the victim testified only about the first groping incident because questioning did not extend to a second incident. At trial, however, the victim testified about both incidents when asked to describe events shown in security video footage. Collier’s conviction also triggered the entry of a previous conviction for attempted lewdness involving a child that had been held in abeyance.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether trial counsel performed deficiently under Strickland v. Washington by failing to use the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony to impeach her trial testimony under Utah Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), which addresses prior inconsistent statements.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court of appeals affirmed both convictions, holding that counsel’s assistance was not ineffective. The court emphasized that inconsistent statements must “contradict or conflict with” prior statements, not merely provide additional details. Since the victim was never asked about the second incident at the preliminary hearing, her trial testimony describing both incidents did not contradict her earlier testimony. The court noted that “Co-worker provided additional details about Collier’s actions when requested” rather than contradictory information.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies the distinction between truly inconsistent statements and merely incomplete testimony. Defense attorneys must identify actual contradictions rather than additional details when seeking to impeach witnesses with prior statements. The court also denied Collier’s Rule 23B motion for remand regarding his claim that counsel should have called his partner as a witness, finding the strategic decision reasonable given potential impeachment evidence.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Collier
Citation
2020 UT App 165
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20190199-CA
Date Decided
December 10, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to impeach a witness with preliminary hearing testimony when no actual inconsistency existed between the preliminary hearing testimony and trial testimony.
Standard of Review
Matter of law for ineffective assistance of counsel claims; abuse of discretion for termination of plea in abeyance agreements; clear error for factual findings; correctness for legal conclusions
Practice Tip
When claiming ineffective assistance based on failure to impeach, ensure there is actual inconsistency between statements rather than merely additional details provided in later testimony.
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.