Can trial counsel's failure to object to hearsay constitute ineffective assistance? State v. Huey Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed when trial counsel’s failure to object to allegedly inadmissible hearsay testimony constitutes ineffective assistance in State v. Huey. The case provides important guidance for appellate practitioners on the high bar for establishing deficient performance in hearsay objection contexts.

Background and Facts

Huey was convicted of rape, forcible sodomy, object rape, and forcible sexual abuse of a 16-year-old victim. The case involved testimony from three witnesses who recounted out-of-court statements made by the victim. The victim’s mother testified about a police officer’s statement that the victim had been raped. A friend testified that the victim called and said Huey “forced her to do meth and raped her.” Another friend testified about similar statements the victim made during a car ride after fleeing Huey’s residence.

Key Legal Issues

On appeal, Huey argued his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to these statements as inadmissible hearsay. The court analyzed whether counsel’s performance was deficient under the Strickland standard and whether any deficiency prejudiced the defense.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found no deficient performance, reasoning that reasonable counsel could have determined the statements were admissible under various theories. The mother’s testimony about the officer’s statement was offered not for its truth but to explain why she subsequently called Huey. The friend’s testimonies could qualify as excited utterances under Utah Rule of Evidence 803(2), given the victim’s distressed state while fleeing the scene and the ongoing trauma from the sexual assault.

Importantly, the court emphasized that even temporal gaps between the traumatic event and the statements don’t automatically disqualify them as excited utterances, particularly when the declarant remains under stress from ongoing circumstances.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that ineffective assistance claims based on failure to make evidentiary objections face a strong presumption of reasonableness. Practitioners must show that no reasonable attorney could have concluded the evidence was admissible under any theory. The court’s analysis also demonstrates the broad scope of the excited utterance exception, particularly in sexual assault cases involving ongoing trauma and flight from the perpetrator.