Must defense counsel challenge age-based statutory rape classifications? State v. Rosen Explained

In State v. Rosen, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge Utah’s age-based statutory rape scheme under the uniform operation of laws provision. The case provides important guidance on when attorneys must pursue constitutional challenges to criminal statutes.

Background and Facts

Aaron Rosen, a former police officer in his 40s, met a 16-year-old victim on an adult dating site where the minor had falsely claimed to be 18 or older. After a sexual encounter, Rosen was charged under Utah Code § 76-5-401.2. Under Utah’s statutory scheme, defendants who are seven to ten years older than the minor can assert a reasonable mistake of age defense, but defendants ten or more years older cannot. Being significantly more than ten years older than the victim, Rosen had no available mistake-of-age defense and was convicted as charged.

Key Legal Issues

On appeal, Rosen argued his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge the age-based classification under Utah Constitution Article I, Section 24—the uniform operation of laws provision. This raised the question of whether reasonable counsel would have pursued such a constitutional challenge.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance claims, focusing on the deficient performance prong. Under Utah’s three-step uniform operation of laws analysis, age-based classifications receive rational basis review—a lenient standard that presumes legislative classifications are permissible. The court concluded that reasonable counsel could have determined the Legislature had rational bases for treating older defendants differently, including that older adults have greater authority over minors, better ability to manipulate them, and should be more aware of age discrepancies. The court noted similar statutory schemes have been routinely upheld in other jurisdictions.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that counsel need not pursue constitutional challenges likely to fail under the applicable standard of review. When evaluating potential equal protection or uniform operation of laws challenges, practitioners should consider whether the classification would survive rational basis scrutiny. The court emphasized that “failure to raise futile objections does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” providing important protection for strategic decisions to forgo weak constitutional arguments.