Utah Court of Appeals
Can prosecutors question alibi witnesses about their failure to come forward before trial? State v. Haga Explained
Summary
Defendant was convicted of burglary and theft of computer equipment from Dee Leasing after being identified by an eyewitness who saw him loading boxes near the crime scene. At trial, defendant presented alibi testimony that was challenged by the prosecutor through questions about the witnesses’ failure to come forward earlier and their potential motives to lie.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Norman Andrew Haga was convicted of burglary and theft following a break-in at Dee Leasing, a wholesale computer store. An eyewitness saw Haga loading boxes near the crime scene and later identified him from a photo lineup. At trial, Haga’s primary defense was an alibi provided by Richard Perry, who testified that Haga was at his tire shop all day during the burglary. The prosecution challenged this testimony through aggressive cross-examination.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented three main appellate issues: whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by questioning Perry about purchasing potentially stolen goods from Haga and about alibi witnesses’ failure to come forward before trial; whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to various prosecutorial statements; and whether an insurance company qualifies as a victim entitled to restitution under Utah’s criminal code.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals found no prosecutorial misconduct. The court held that questioning Perry about purchasing stolen goods was proper impeachment under Utah Rule of Evidence 608(c) because it explored potential bias or motive to misrepresent. Significantly, the court ruled that prosecutors may legitimately cross-examine alibi witnesses about their failure to come forward before trial, citing State v. Brown for the principle that delayed disclosure of exculpatory information affects witness credibility. The court also rejected the ineffective assistance claims, finding that defense counsel’s tactical decisions not to object had conceivable strategic bases.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance for both prosecutors and defense attorneys handling cases with alibi defenses. Prosecutors may properly challenge the timing of alibi witness disclosures to test credibility without violating defendants’ rights. However, defense counsel should prepare alibi witnesses for such questioning and consider whether strategic objections might limit prosecutorial latitude in closing arguments. The court’s remand for a restitution hearing also reinforces the requirement for proper procedural safeguards in restitution determinations.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Haga
Citation
1998 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 960405-CA
Date Decided
February 26, 1998
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Prosecutorial questioning of alibi witnesses about failure to come forward before trial is proper impeachment, and cross-examination about potential motives to misrepresent falls within permissible bounds of advocacy.
Standard of Review
The opinion applies multiple standards: prosecutorial misconduct claims are reviewed for harm where remarks called attention to matters jurors would not be justified in considering; ineffective assistance claims require showing deficient performance falling below objective reasonableness and reasonable probability of different outcome; plain error requires showing an error exists, should have been obvious to trial court, and is harmful
Practice Tip
When challenging alibi testimony, prosecutors may legitimately question witnesses about their failure to come forward earlier, as this goes to credibility rather than imposing an improper duty to assist police.
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.