Utah Court of Appeals
Can defense counsel strategically withdraw an entrapment instruction request? State v. Slater Explained
Summary
Mark Slater was convicted of enticing a minor after attempting to meet with a police decoy posing as a thirteen-year-old girl. Defense counsel initially requested an entrapment instruction but withdrew it after Slater’s testimony established he believed he was communicating with law enforcement, not a child. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding counsel’s strategic decision to focus on a mens rea defense rather than pursue contradictory theories was objectively reasonable.
Analysis
In State v. Slater, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by withdrawing a request for an entrapment jury instruction during trial. The case demonstrates how strategic decisions about competing defense theories can be objectively reasonable under the Strickland standard.
Background and Facts
Slater was charged with enticing a minor after communicating with an undercover officer posing as a thirteen-year-old girl on the Whisper app. Defense counsel initially filed a motion for dismissal based on entrapment and requested an entrapment instruction. However, after Slater testified that he never believed “Jenny” was actually a child and suspected she was law enforcement, counsel withdrew the entrapment instruction request. Instead, counsel pursued a mens rea defense, arguing Slater lacked the requisite mental state because he believed he was communicating with an adult.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether counsel’s decision to abandon the entrapment defense constituted deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington. The court also examined whether pursuing both an entrapment defense and a mens rea defense would have been contradictory and strategically unsound.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court found counsel’s performance was objectively reasonable for two reasons. First, Slater’s testimony directly contradicted the elements of entrapment under Utah Code § 76-2-303. He admitted the officer did not pressure, goad, or badger him, and that he directed the conversation and had numerous opportunities to leave. Second, pursuing both defenses would have been contradictory—entrapment presupposes the defendant committed the crime with requisite intent, while the mens rea defense argued Slater lacked criminal intent because he knew Jenny wasn’t a child.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that counsel has “wide latitude to make tactical decisions” and may reasonably choose to “protect the integrity of his preferred theory of the case by not simultaneously advancing a contradictory one.” Practitioners should carefully evaluate whether multiple defense theories complement or undermine each other, particularly when client testimony affects the viability of certain defenses. The ruling also highlights the importance of understanding entrapment elements under Utah law and recognizing when evidence fails to support such claims.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Slater
Citation
2026 UT App 60
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20221006-CA
Date Decided
April 16, 2026
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Defense counsel’s strategic decision to withdraw an entrapment instruction request and focus on a mens rea defense was objectively reasonable where defendant’s testimony contradicted the elements of entrapment.
Standard of Review
Questions of law reviewed in the first instance for claims of ineffective assistance raised for the first time on appeal
Practice Tip
When a defendant’s testimony undermines one defense theory, consider whether pursuing multiple contradictory defenses will harm the client’s credibility and strategic position with the jury.
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.