Can ineffective assistance be shown when defendant confessed to the crime? State v. Latu Explained

In State v. Latu, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether counsel’s failure to object to detective testimony about inconsistent victim statements constituted prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel when the defendant had confessed to the crime.

Background and Facts: Latu met the victim through a dating website and engaged in sexual conduct without her consent during their third meeting. The victim’s initial statements to police contained inconsistencies regarding timing and details. During his police interview, Latu admitted that the victim said “no,” that he forcibly removed her underwear, performed oral sex on her, and acted without her consent. The jury convicted Latu of forcible sexual abuse as a lesser included offense to rape, rejecting the victim’s testimony about penetration but accepting Latu’s version of events.

Key Legal Issues: The primary issue was whether counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object when the detective testified about the commonality of inconsistent statements by sexual assault victims. Latu argued this testimony improperly bolstered the victim’s credibility in a case that “hinged on her credibility.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The court applied the Strickland test and focused on the prejudice prong. The court found no prejudice because: (1) the jury’s verdict showed it already questioned the victim’s credibility by rejecting the rape charge, and (2) Latu’s confession alone established all elements of forcible sexual abuse. The court emphasized that under Utah Code § 76-5-404(2)(a), the State only needed to prove Latu acted recklessly regarding consent, which his admission that he heard “no” but continued anyway clearly established.

Practice Implications: This decision demonstrates the difficulty of proving prejudice in ineffective assistance claims when strong independent evidence supports the conviction. Practitioners should carefully evaluate whether excluding challenged evidence could realistically change the outcome. The case also highlights the strategic consideration of requesting lesser included offense instructions, which here resulted in a favorable outcome for the defendant despite his confession.