Must counsel redact prejudicial findings from protective orders admitted as evidence? State v. Collard Explained

In State v. Collard, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial counsel’s failure to redact prejudicial language from admitted protective orders constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. The decision provides important guidance for criminal defense practitioners handling protective order violation cases.

Background and Facts

Kevin Collard was charged with violating a protective order after calling his estranged wife’s workplace at Home Depot. The State admitted into evidence the temporary protective order, which contained an unredacted judicial finding that “there [was] reason to believe” Collard had “abused or committed domestic violence” against his wife. Defense counsel made no request to redact this finding before the document was admitted. The court had previously ruled that allegations of prior assault and the basis for the protective order were irrelevant to the charges.

Key Legal Issues

The court examined two primary issues: whether sufficient evidence supported Collard’s convictions for violating the permanent protective order, and whether defense counsel’s failure to seek redaction of prejudicial language from the admitted protective order constituted ineffective assistance.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed the denial of Collard’s motion to arrest judgment, finding sufficient evidence existed for the jury to infer the permanent protective order contained the same terms as the temporary order. However, the court reversed on ineffective assistance grounds. The court concluded that reasonable counsel would have sought redaction of the damaging and irrelevant findings, as the language “clearly painted Collard in a bad light that had the potential to turn the jury against him.” The court found prejudice where the evidence was not overwhelming and the protective order findings portrayed Collard as “a dangerous and threatening individual.”

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear expectations for defense counsel when protective orders are admitted as evidence. Practitioners must proactively seek redaction of irrelevant and prejudicial judicial findings that could inflame the jury. The court rejected the State’s argument that counsel might tactically choose not to highlight the order by objecting, noting that redaction requests can be made outside the jury’s presence. Defense counsel should carefully review all admitted documents for prejudicial content and seek appropriate limitations, particularly when the trial court has already indicated such material lacks relevance to the charges.