When does ineffective assistance of counsel apply to inherent improbability claims? State v. Corona Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Corona addressed two ineffective assistance of counsel claims, providing important guidance on the inherent improbability doctrine and prejudicial testimony standards. This decision reinforces the extremely high bar for inherent improbability claims in Utah criminal cases.

Background and Facts

Corona was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a child after allegedly abusing an eleven-year-old girl at a party where adults were drinking. The victim’s testimony contained some inconsistencies between her trial testimony and her Children’s Justice Center interview, including details about whether Corona pushed his daughter out of the room or told her to leave, and the exact sequence of events after the alleged abuse. The victim also admitted she lied during her CJC interview when she said Corona slapped her, explaining she felt rushed to give a specific answer.

Key Legal Issues

Corona raised two ineffective assistance of counsel claims: (1) counsel’s failure to move for directed verdict or arrest judgment based on inherent improbability of the victim’s testimony, and (2) counsel’s failure to object to the victim’s mother’s emotional testimony under Rule 403 as unfairly prejudicial.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected both claims. On the inherent improbability issue, the court emphasized that State v. Robbins remains the only Utah case where testimony was deemed inherently improbable, and reasonable counsel would recognize that such motions are “almost certainly” futile except in extreme circumstances. The victim’s inconsistencies were not material inconsistencies but rather involved tangential issues or matters of perception. Regarding the mother’s testimony, while assuming deficient performance, the court found no prejudice because the emotional statements did not meaningfully alter the evidentiary picture—the jury already knew the family considered Corona part of their family and that he had a daughter the same age as the victim.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that inherent improbability claims remain extremely difficult to establish in Utah. The court noted that in the six years since 2019, no Utah decision has reversed a verdict under the Robbins standard. Practitioners should be wary of pursuing such claims unless facing truly extraordinary circumstances involving substantial material inconsistencies, patent falsehoods, and lack of any corroborating evidence. For Rule 403 objections, the analysis focuses on whether excluded testimony would meaningfully change the evidentiary picture presented to the jury.