Utah Court of Appeals
When should counsel object to expert testimony about delayed disclosure statistics? State v. Sombra-Delgado Explained
Summary
Sombra-Delgado was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child based on his niece’s testimony about incidents that occurred when she was nine or ten years old. On appeal, he argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to expert testimony characterizing certain reasons for delayed disclosure as ‘rare’ or ‘very rare.’
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Sombra-Delgado, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to expert testimony characterizing certain reasons for delayed disclosure as “rare” or “very rare.”
Background and Facts
Sombra-Delgado was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child based on testimony from his niece, who disclosed abuse that occurred when she was nine or ten years old. The victim did not report the abuse until she was fifteen, several years after a previous interview at the Children’s Justice Center where she disclosed abuse by a teacher but failed to mention Sombra-Delgado. At trial, the State called an expert witness to testify about delayed disclosure patterns in child abuse cases.
Key Legal Issues
On appeal, Sombra-Delgado argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the expert’s testimony that certain reasons for delayed disclosure—such as retaliation, seeking belonging, or gaining attention—were “rare” or “very rare.” He contended this constituted inadmissible anecdotal statistical evidence that improperly bolstered the victim’s credibility.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the two-pronged Strickland test for ineffective assistance claims, focusing on whether counsel’s performance was objectively deficient. The court found that because expert testimony stating delayed disclosure is “common” is admissible, testimony that something is “uncommon” or “rare” would likewise be permissible. Additionally, the court emphasized that trial strategy considerations supported counsel’s decision not to object, as the expert had agreed that all of counsel’s proposed scenarios were possible—a crucial concession for the defense theory.
Practice Implications
This decision highlights the strategic complexity of making objections during cross-examination. The court noted that objecting after unfavorable answers could invoke the “pink-elephant paradox“—drawing unwanted attention to harmful testimony. Utah courts consistently hold that decisions regarding whether to seek curative instructions are highly strategic and deserving of deference. Practitioners should carefully weigh whether post-answer objections will help or harm their case, particularly when the witness has made favorable concessions that support the defense theory.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Sombra-Delgado
Citation
2025 UT App 83
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20220673-CA
Date Decided
May 30, 2025
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to expert testimony about delayed disclosure being ‘rare’ or ‘very rare’ because the testimony was likely admissible and objecting could have been a reasonable strategic decision to avoid drawing unwanted attention to unfavorable testimony.
Standard of Review
The court reviewed the ineffective assistance of counsel claim as a matter of law, as it was raised for the first time on appeal with no lower court ruling to review.
Practice Tip
Consider the strategic implications of objecting to testimony after the jury has already heard it, as curative instructions may draw more attention to unfavorable evidence rather than minimize its impact.
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.