State v. Vine

2025 UT App 147

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee,
v.
SEVERO GONZALO VINE,
Appellant.

Opinion
No. 20221058-CA
Filed October 17, 2025

Fourth District Court, Provo Department
The Honorable Kraig Powell
No. 211401981

Ann M. Taliaferro, Attorney for Appellant
Derek E. Brown and Tera J. Peterson,
Attorneys for Appellee

JUDGE RYAN M. HARRIS authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and JOHN D. LUTHY concurred.

HARRIS, Judge:

¶1 A jury convicted Severo Gonzalo Vine of committing
forcible sodomy on his girlfriend. He appeals that conviction,
asserting that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally
ineffective assistance in various respects. For the reasons
discussed, we reject Vine’s arguments and affirm his conviction.
State v. Vine

BACKGROUND 1

¶2 Vine and Lisa 2 met each other at an inpatient substance
abuse rehabilitation center, became romantically involved, and
started living together after they were released. During their two-
plus-year relationship, they each struggled with drug use and had
occasional brushes with the law, and their relationship was
sometimes “rocky” and “contemptuous.”

¶3 At one point during their relationship, they both ended up
serving short jail sentences, and they happened to be released
from jail on the same day. Later that day, they smoked
methamphetamine together and went to Lisa’s mother’s house,
where Lisa had a bedroom. Lisa often took medication in the
evening for anxiety and insomnia, and that night she took “a little
bit extra” because she was “really on edge” and wanted to sleep.
Lisa and Vine went to sleep in Lisa’s bedroom. At some point in
the night, the two woke up and had consensual vaginal sex; Lisa
fell asleep again afterward.

¶4 Sometime the next morning, Lisa noticed that her anus was
feeling “really tender” and “sore,” and she found dried blood on
her anus. She thought the presence of blood was “weird” because
it wasn’t her “time of the month.” Lisa then confronted Vine and
asked him if he knew anything about the blood on her anus. Vine
responded by telling Lisa that he “had sex with [her] while [she
was] asleep” and that he had “put it in [her] anus.” Lisa asked

1. In appeals following jury verdicts, “we examine the evidence
and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most
favorable to the verdict, and we recite the facts accordingly.” State
v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, n.1, 453 P.3d 657 (cleaned up). In so
doing, “we present conflicting evidence only when necessary to
understand issues raised on appeal.” Id. (cleaned up).

2. A pseudonym.

20221058-CA 2 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

Vine why he did that, and he responded, “Well, I was horny.
What else did you expect me to do?”

¶5 Later that day, Lisa reviewed a series of video recordings
that had been captured the previous night by a camera she had
set up in her room. Lisa had set up the camera in the corner of the
bedroom because she had suspected Vine was stealing from her.
This camera automatically recorded video clips in twelve-second
increments when triggered by motion or sound, with a five-
minute “cooldown” period between each clip. The camera
operated this way because Lisa had subscribed to a free service
the camera company offered, instead of the paid service that
permitted continuous footage. During the previous night, the
camera had captured seven video clips, totaling less than two
minutes, over a seventy-minute period. Each clip had a time
stamp and had been recorded between 12:23 a.m. and 1:33 a.m.
Lisa remembered going through the video clips “kind of quickly”
at first, and during this first review she did not see anything “too
crazy.” But she was later encouraged to “look through every
single” video again. And when she did so, she observed Vine
doing things to her that she considered “not okay.”

¶6 Eventually, Lisa filed a report with law enforcement,
provided a witness statement, and showed a police officer the
video clips. At law enforcement’s request, Lisa transferred the
clips onto a DVD and gave it to law enforcement. A detective
(Detective) later interviewed Lisa and reviewed the video clips.

Pretrial Proceedings

¶7 The State later charged Vine with one count of forcible
sodomy, a first-degree felony. At the preliminary hearing, the
State moved to admit the DVD Lisa had provided to law
enforcement containing the seven video clips. Vine’s attorney
(Counsel) objected, arguing that the videos lacked foundation to
be admitted because Lisa had “self-selected” and “edited” the
videos. Counsel noted that the videos showed “seven clips that

20221058-CA 3 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

are less than a minute long” of activity within a seventy-minute
time frame on the evening in question, and he argued that Lisa
had not said “how she achieved the seven clips, [or] why there
[were] . . . less than seven minutes of total video from this hour
and [ten]-minute period.” And he asserted that, “without
knowing more . . . it would be unfair . . . for the court to consider
[the clips] at this point of the proceedings.”

¶8 The court sustained the objection under rules 403 and 901
of the Utah Rules of Evidence, but noted that it might reconsider
the matter “if there were additional evidence . . . as to what the
nature of the video [was], how it was created, [and] why it [was]
broken up into so many brief segments over this period of time.”

¶9 The State then requested a continuance to present
additional foundation for the video clips, and the court granted
the request. At the continued hearing, the State presented a
supplemental statement from Lisa, in which she explained that
the duration of the video clips and the gaps between them were
attributable to the free subscription service provided by the
camera company. Based on Lisa’s explanation of the intermittent
recordings, the court overruled Counsel’s prior objection because,
in the court’s view, the “objection now goes to the weight of the
evidence, not to its admissibility.” At the conclusion of the
preliminary hearing, the court bound Vine over for trial.

¶10 The day before the scheduled trial, Lisa provided the State
with four memory cards, and she indicated that these cards may
contain additional video footage from the night of the incident.
After the State informed Vine and the court, Counsel moved for a
continuance to allow him to review the data on the cards, and the
court granted the motion. Detective subsequently reviewed the
memory cards and found that there were video clips from dates
before and after the date of the alleged events but that there were
no additional clips from the date of the incident. Counsel
represented to the court that at least three of the memory cards

20221058-CA 4 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

had “no evidentiary value,” but he said he was concerned about
the “scores, if not hundreds of deleted files” on the fourth card.
Counsel asked the State to provide Vine with a copy of a report
that the State had generated about the memory card, which report
included information about the video clips on the card, such as
“when they were created,” “last accessed,” and “ultimately
deleted.” The State eventually provided the report, and Counsel
represented at the next hearing that a defense expert was
reviewing the information.

Trial

¶11 The trial was ultimately rescheduled for a three-day setting
in August 2022. The State filed its notice of witnesses and
proposed trial exhibits, which included the DVD containing the
seven video clips. Counsel did not file any pretrial motion seeking
to exclude the video clips. And at the final pretrial conference,
Counsel stated that the defense was “prepared to go forward,”
noting that he had “received a copy of the State’s jury instructions,
witness list, [and] exhibit list.” Counsel also represented that he
didn’t anticipate filing any further motions.

¶12 Trial then began as scheduled. In support of its case, the
State called several witnesses, including Detective, Lisa, and a
director of software engineering (Director) from the company that
manufactured Lisa’s camera.

¶13 During his testimony, Detective stated that Lisa had
provided the DVD containing the seven video clips to the initial
responding officer and that Detective himself reviewed the
contents of the DVD. He discussed his review of the clips, and he
offered his perception that Lisa appeared to be unconscious in the
video and that Vine appeared to be “moving her body and
manipulating her body in different ways and touching her
sexually.” Detective identified the individuals depicted in the
video as Lisa and Vine. Detective also testified that Lisa had
provided him with the four memory cards and that he had used

20221058-CA 5 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

a special software program to analyze the cards, which allowed
him to view the data on the cards without altering it. He explained
that the memory cards contained cell phone data and several
days’ worth of video footage, but that “[n]one of the [memory]
cards appeared to have anything that was directly relevant to the
dates concerned” in this case. Detective also testified that he
reviewed the “forensic download” report of the memory cards
and that none of the deleted files appeared to be “directly
relevant” to the date of the incident for which Vine was charged.
On cross-examination, Detective testified that the video clips Lisa
provided were given numerical titles but that the videos were not
ordered chronologically. And he stated that the memory cards
contained no video footage from the period spanning seven days
before to nine days after the date of the alleged crime.

¶14 Lisa testified next. She provided background on her
relationship with Vine, described the events on the day of the
incident, and detailed her discovery of the blood the following
morning as well as her confrontation with Vine and his admission
that he had anal sex with her while she was asleep. In addition,
she described her review of the video clips and her subsequent
report to law enforcement. She testified that she had previously
told Vine not to have sex with her while she was asleep, and she
stated that she felt the need to do that because, on at least two
occasions prior to the incident, she had awakened to Vine trying
to have sex with her. After the first time this happened, she told
Vine that his behavior was “not okay” and said, “Please, . . . don’t
do this while I’m asleep.” After the second instance, she
remembered telling him, “I told you this before, . . . this is a really
big boundary for me, this is not okay, do not do this again.”

¶15 Lisa identified the DVD that contained the video clips as
the one she had given to law enforcement. She explained that she
had downloaded the clips onto the DVD, and she confirmed that
“these [were] the files that . . . [she] put onto th[e] DVD.” She also
explained why she set up the camera and why there were gaps in

20221058-CA 6 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

the recordings, and she explained that she had gone back and re-
reviewed the video clips after “talking to a friend.” The court
admitted the DVD into evidence without objection, and the State
played the seven video clips for the jury. Lisa described some of
the events that occurred while the videos were played, and during
one clip, she recognized her voice where she “yelped” or
“shouted” while Vine was “behind [her] doing things to [her].”
Lisa confirmed that the videos “fairly and accurately
represent[ed] what [she] viewed from [her] camera.” As the clips
were played for the jury, Counsel approached the bench and
informed the court that there was audio for some of the clips that
he did not believe was coming through. The court stated that it
heard audio, and Counsel responded that he was “not hearing
what [he] expected to hear.” Counsel made no further objection.

¶16 On cross-examination, Counsel asked Lisa about her
history of substance abuse and the occasions where she had failed
to complete treatment programs. She testified that she had been
in and out of various treatment facilities or sober living houses,
but that she always got back with Vine afterward.

¶17 Counsel also questioned Lisa about her motive to review
the video clips the second time. Specifically, Counsel asked Lisa if
she had been directed to rewatch the clips in order to gather
evidence for another case against Vine, rather than being
prompted by a friend to do so. Counsel asked, “Do you remember
telling [Detective] that you’d made some other complaints against
[Vine] and a case officer asked you to review the footage for
further domestic violence and that’s when you found the footage
of the sex offense?”

¶18 After this question, the State asked to approach the bench
and told the court that it had instructed Lisa not to talk about the
separate domestic violence case. The State explained that Vine
had separate domestic violence charges pending against him for
allegedly striking Lisa and that this incident had also been

20221058-CA 7 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

captured on Lisa’s camera. Counsel responded that he was
“asking [Lisa] about prior inconsistent statements” and that in
Detective’s report Lisa was quoted as saying that she found the
footage of the incident after the case manager for the domestic
violence case asked her to re-review the footage. Counsel
acknowledged that he “probably shouldn’t have mentioned the
word domestic violence” in his question, and he indicated that he
had only wanted to impeach Lisa about the reason she re-
reviewed the camera footage. After hearing the parties’
arguments, the court stated that Counsel had “open[ed] the door”
to the statement about the domestic violence incident, and it ruled
that “the attorneys [would] be allowed to ask questions using the
language of the police report.” The court then asked one of the
attorneys to read the sentence in the report aloud to the jury. In
turn, the court instructed Lisa that she was “allowed to answer
questions about that statement in the police report.” Counsel later
asked Lisa if she had been told to re-review the clips because of
the domestic violence case, to which Lisa again responded that
her re-review had been prompted by a friend.

¶19 At one point during cross-examination, Counsel asked Lisa
whether she had told Detective that she ended her relationship
with Vine the day after the incident. Lisa responded in the
negative. When Counsel asked why Detective would have
mentioned that in the report, Lisa responded that she and Vine
had initially “decided to stay together” but that Vine “ended up
getting arrested . . . a couple of days later . . . and he was in jail for
a month.” Counsel did not object to this response and moved on
with his line of questioning.

¶20 After Lisa’s testimony, the State called Director. Like Lisa,
Director explained that for free subscription service accounts, the
camera Lisa owned records a video of up to twelve seconds each
time a motion or audio event occurs, but usually only records one
such video every five minutes. Director testified that the audio
quality of the recordings is “not perfect, especially for those

20221058-CA 8 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

events happening far away.” And on cross-examination, Director
explained that any motion that occurs during the five-minute
“cooldown” period will not be recorded but that if there is a
“technical issue,” where the “camera gets rebooted for some
reason or reset, there is a possibility” a second video could be
recorded “less than [five] minutes” after the last one. After this
testimony, the State rested its case.

Jury Instructions and Vine’s Defense

¶21 During the second day of trial, the court and the attorneys
discussed jury instructions. As relevant here, the court addressed
the State’s proposed jury instructions regarding the consent
element of forcible sodomy. Specifically, the State wanted the
consent instruction to include the following theory of nonconsent
listed in statute: that “Vine knew that [Lisa] was, (a) unconscious,
(b) unaware that the act was occurring, or (c) physically unable to
resist.” See Utah Code § 76-5-406(2)(e). By contrast, Counsel
proposed a more robust list of nonconsent theories than the State
because, in Counsel’s view, the State’s proposal “limit[ed] it too
much in what the jury would be able to consider.” Thus, Counsel
proposed that the instruction incorporate eight theories of
nonconsent, all from the consent statute and the Model Utah Jury
Instructions (MUJI). For example, regarding an “expressed lack of
consent through words or conduct” theory, Counsel explained
that “[t]here’s 4,209 seconds of time that elapses between the start
of the video clips and the end of the video clips,” yet only “72
seconds of that time period” were in evidence. As a result,
Counsel argued that because there was a gap in “what went on
during the other 4,100 and some odd seconds,” the State “should
have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Lisa] expressed
lack of consent through words or conduct or not.” Counsel further
explained that some of the other nonconsent theories in the statute
should also be included because “the same type of argument
would apply” to them.

20221058-CA 9 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

¶22 Comparing the parties’ proposals with the consent
provisions in the relevant statute, the court ruled that it was
“going to come down somewhere in the middle,” meaning that it
would “add more factors”—theories of nonconsent—as
suggested by Counsel and “keep in many of the factors the State
has suggested.” The court explained that it was not going to
incorporate all the theories that had been proposed by Counsel
because that would be “absurd under some of these
circumstances.” In keeping with this ruling, the court gave
separate instructions regarding the elements of forcible sodomy
and regarding consent. The elements instruction read as follows:

You cannot convict . . . unless based on the evidence
you find beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the
following elements:

1. Severo Gonzalo Vine;

2. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly committed
a sexual act involving any touching of the skin,
however slight, of: a. the genitals of Severo
Gonzalo Vine, and b. the anus of [Lisa];

3. Without [Lisa’s] consent; and

4. Severo Gonzalo Vine acted: a. with knowledge
that [Lisa] did not consent; or b. recklessly as to
whether [Lisa] consented; and

5. At the time of the act, [Lisa] was 14 years old or
older.

And the consent instruction read like this:

The alleged sexual conduct is without consent of
[Lisa] under any, all, or a combination of the
following circumstances:

20221058-CA 10 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

• [Lisa] expressed lack of consent through words or
conduct;

• [Vine] overcame [Lisa] through the application of
physical force or violence;

• [Vine] overcame [Lisa] through concealment or by
the element of surprise;

• [Vine] knew that [Lisa] was unconscious, was
unaware that the act was occurring or was
physically unable to resist; and/or

• [Vine] knew that as a result of mental illness or
defect, or for any other reason, [Lisa] was
incapable at the time of the act of either
understanding the nature of the act or of resisting
it.

In deciding lack of consent, you are not limited to
the circumstances listed above. You may also apply
the common, ordinary meaning of consent to all of
the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶23 After this discussion, Vine presented his defense, recalling
Detective to the stand as his only witness. Among other things,
Counsel elicited testimony that some of the video clips “were
approximately five minutes apart,” while “[o]thers were over 30
minutes apart.” Detective reiterated that the video files were
given numerical names but were not numbered in chronological
order. And Counsel questioned Detective on whether Lisa had
originally reported that she had found blood around her anus the
morning after the incident.

¶24 After Detective’s testimony, the defense rested; Vine did
not testify. The court then provided the final jury instructions,
including the instructions discussed above.

20221058-CA 11 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

Closing Arguments and Verdict

¶25 The attorneys then gave closing arguments. The State
argued that Lisa’s lack of consent was evident from her actions in
the video clips themselves. The State asserted that in the clips, Lisa
was “lying there, lying asleep, not moving. . . . What she was
doing was not being an active participant. She wasn’t aware. She
didn’t know what was going on. She was asleep. You cannot
consent when you’re asleep.” The State also pointed to Lisa’s
testimony where she had told Vine twice before the incident not
to have sex with her while she was asleep.

¶26 During the defense’s closing, Counsel argued that the State
had failed to prove that Vine committed forcible sodomy,
directing the jury’s attention to the element of consent. Counsel
noted that for more than two years, Vine and Lisa “pretty much
lived together” and “had an intense sexual relationship.” Counsel
argued that the jury would “have to believe beyond a reasonable
doubt that [Lisa] had withdrawn that consent at some point to not
engage in this type of conduct.” Counsel also argued that the
video clips did not show forcible sodomy, asserting that Vine’s
penis could not be seen touching Lisa’s anus in any of the clips.
And Counsel contended that Lisa was not unconscious because
the clips show her “changing positions” and if the volume on the
recordings had been amplified, the jury would have heard
“talking” and “audible voices.” Counsel pointed out that there
was “clearly some talking” in several of the video clips.

¶27 Counsel also questioned the reliability of the video clips.
He argued that the clips covered “less than two percent of the
actual time that elapsed between the very start of that first video
and the very end of the last video,” and thus, there was “no way
of knowing what happened outside of those 72 seconds.” Counsel
asserted that Lisa “cherry-picked” the video clips before
providing them to law enforcement. Counsel further argued that
the video clips were likely edited because the files had been

20221058-CA 12 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

renamed, the time between the clips varied, and the clips were out
of chronological order. Counsel also pointed out that Lisa’s
memory cards were missing data from the two-week period
surrounding the incident.

¶28 Counsel continued by questioning Lisa’s credibility. He
pointed to what he termed the “glaring inconsistency” that Lisa
“made no mention of any blood” to law enforcement initially.
Counsel also questioned how Lisa could have slept through the
alleged anal sex when she had taken methamphetamine, which
“she testified before” usually “made her feel alive and awake and
alert when she used” it.

¶29 In rebuttal, the State argued that “consent to any sexual act
or prior consensual activity” does not “constitute consent to any
other sexual act.” The State then replayed three of the video clips
to show that Vine “knew [Lisa] wasn’t consenting.” In the first,
the State argued that Vine “look[ed] directly at her to see if his
action woke her up,” and that he did that “two more times to see
if she [was] awake.” In the second, the State said that Vine
“look[ed] at her to see if [she was] awake after [he was] engaging
in his act.” And in the final clip, the State argued that Vine
“look[ed] at her again to see what she [was] doing, to see if [she
was] going to wake up and tell him that this [was] not okay.”

¶30 After deliberating, the jury found Vine guilty of forcible
sodomy, and the court later sentenced Vine to prison.

ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶31 Vine now appeals, asserting that he is entitled to a new trial
because Counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance
in various respects. “When an ineffective assistance claim is raised
for the first time on appeal, it presents a question of law.” State v.
Rivera, 2022 UT App 44, ¶ 21, 509 P.3d 257.

20221058-CA 13 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

ANALYSIS

¶32 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, Vine must
make a two-part showing: (1) that Counsel’s performance “fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) that this
deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there
is a reasonable probability that, but for [C]ounsel’s unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 694 (1984); accord
State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 28, 462 P.3d 350; State v. Ray, 2020 UT
12, ¶ 24, 469 P.3d 871. Failure to prove either component is fatal;
“[u]nless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that
the conviction . . . resulted from a breakdown in the adversary
process that renders the result unreliable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at
687. Thus, “if either is lacking, the claim fails and this court need
not address the other.” State v. Kufrin, 2024 UT App 86, ¶ 55, 551
P.3d 416 (cleaned up).

¶33 In this case, Vine claims that Counsel rendered ineffective
assistance in three ways: (1) by not challenging the admissibility
of the video clips under a number of evidentiary rules; (2) by not
objecting to—or by opening the door to—prior-bad-acts evidence;
and (3) by not ensuring that the jury was properly instructed as to
the consent element of forcible sodomy. For the reasons discussed,
we reject each of Vine’s ineffective assistance claims. 3

3. Vine also argues that, when viewed together, the cumulative
effect of Counsel’s deficiencies resulted in prejudice. “Under the
doctrine of cumulative prejudice, we will reverse if the
cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence
that a fair trial was had.” State v. King, 2017 UT App 43, ¶ 38, 392
P.3d 997 (cleaned up). Because we ultimately conclude that
Counsel performed deficiently in only one of the ways Vine
asserts, we need not address the cumulative effect of multiple
(continued…)

20221058-CA 14 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

I. The Video Clips

¶34 Vine first argues that Counsel provided ineffective
assistance by failing to challenge the admissibility of the video
clips under several evidentiary rules. 4 This claim fails because
Vine has not demonstrated that Counsel performed deficiently.

A. Authenticity

¶35 Vine first argues that Counsel should have sought to
exclude the video clips for lack of authenticity under rule 901 of
the Utah Rules of Evidence.

deficiencies. See State v. Martinez-Castellanos, 2018 UT 46, ¶ 48, 428
P.3d 1038 (stating that “a single accumulable error cannot warrant
reversal under the cumulative error doctrine”).

4. In his brief, Vine relies on a theme that the video evidence was
generally unreliable and untrustworthy, and in doing so he points
to a number of purported flaws: that Lisa had been “in complete
control over the original recordings,” that she had selected the
clips to provide the State, that the “State could not show the
evidence had not been tampered with,” that the gaps between the
clips rendered the evidence unreliable because the jury had to
“speculate” about what occurred in the intervening time, that the
audio quality was poor, and that the memory cards may have
included important data that had been deleted. But we note that
Vine has selected specific evidentiary rules as the bases for this
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. So we address his
arguments under those rules, without addressing every other
argument or implication contained in Vine’s brief in connection
with the video evidence. See State v. Draper, 2024 UT App 152,
¶ 124, 560 P.3d 122 (“An appellate court has discretion as to the
nature and extent of the opinions it renders and we need not
address in writing each and every argument, issue, or claim raised
and properly before us on appeal.” (cleaned up)).

20221058-CA 15 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

¶36 Our evidentiary rules require that an item of evidence be
properly authenticated, a process that requires the proponent to
“produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is
what the proponent claims it is.” Utah R. Evid. 901(a). “Proper
authentication does not require conclusive proof, and the
proponent has to make only a prima facie showing of
authenticity.” State v. Welsh, 2022 UT App 112, ¶ 36, 519 P.3d 572
(cleaned up). The “process of authentication must be
distinguished from a finding of authenticity.” State v. Jacques, 924
P.2d 898, 901 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). “The district court is
responsible for the process of authentication, whereby it assesses
whether there is evidence sufficient to support a jury finding of
authenticity.” Welsh, 2022 UT App 112, ¶ 37 (cleaned up). But “the
jury is ultimately responsible for determining whether the
evidence is in fact authentic once the evidence is admitted.”
Jacques, 924 P.2d at 901.

¶37 In this case, Counsel could have reasonably decided that
any authenticity objection would be readily overruled. Lisa
testified that she had set up the camera in her bedroom,
subscribed to the free service provided by the camera company,
and transferred the video clips onto the DVD that she provided to
law enforcement. She also confirmed at trial that the DVD
contained the video clips that she had viewed. In short, she
provided sufficient testimony for the jury to find that the video
clips were what the State purported them to be.

¶38 We also note that Counsel did in fact raise an authenticity
challenge at the preliminary hearing, and the court initially
sustained his objection. Yet in so ruling, the court explained that
it would reconsider the matter “if there were additional evidence
. . . as to what the nature of the video [was], how it was created,
[and] why it [was] broken up into so many brief segments over
this period of time.” Because the State gathered more evidence to
cure these deficiencies, and because the court then considered the

20221058-CA 16 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

clips sufficiently authenticated, Counsel could have reasonably
decided that any renewed authenticity motion would fail.

¶39 Thus, Vine has not borne his burden of demonstrating that
Counsel performed deficiently by choosing not to make a second
authenticity objection to the video clips.

B. Rule 403 5

¶40 Vine next argues that Counsel should have objected to the
video evidence under rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

¶41 Under that rule, “[t]he court may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a
danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting
time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Utah R.
Evid. 403. For purposes of this test, the “probative value of
evidence is judged by the strength of the evidence and its ability
to make the existence of a consequential fact either more or less
probable and the proponent’s need for the evidence.” Anderson-
Wallace v. Rusk, 2021 UT App 10, ¶ 19, 482 P.3d 822 (cleaned up).
Rule 403 “imposes the heavy burden not only to show that the risk
of unfair prejudice is greater than the probative value, but that it
substantially outweighs the probative value.” State v. Smith, 2019
UT App 141, ¶ 35, 449 P.3d 971 (emphasis added) (cleaned up).

5. In the section of his brief discussing rule 403, Vine also cites
rules 401 and 402 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. To the extent Vine
is attempting to argue that the video clips are not relevant, we
disagree. Relevance is a “very low bar,” State v. Swearingen, 2023
UT App 155, ¶ 11, 542 P.3d 123 (cleaned up), and on the facts of
this case, the clips were clearly relevant to whether Lisa was
unconscious during the events in question and in turn whether
she had consented to anal sex.

20221058-CA 17 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

¶42 Vine asserts that the video clips were unduly prejudicial
because they contained poor audio quality; in particular, he
asserts that Lisa and Vine were making sounds that could not be
heard on the clips and that the inaudible portions were so
substantial as to render the entire recording untrustworthy.

¶43 In this situation, a reasonable attorney could have decided
that a rule 403 challenge would fail. The video evidence was
highly probative of whether Lisa was unconscious at the time of
the incident and, in turn, whether she consented to anal sex. And
the asserted prejudice goes more to the weight of the evidence
than to its admissibility. In this situation, Counsel could have
reasonably believed that the clips’ probative value was not
substantially outweighed by the danger that it would have an
unfairly prejudicial effect.

¶44 On this basis, we conclude that Vine has failed to
demonstrate that Counsel performed deficiently by opting not to
raise a rule 403 objection to the admissibility of the video clips.

C. The Best Evidence Rule

¶45 Vine next argues that, because the DVD containing the
video clips was not the original recording, Counsel should have
lodged an objection under rule 1002 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

¶46 That rule states that “[a]n original writing, recording, or
photograph is required in order to prove its content, except as
otherwise provided in these rules.” Utah R. Evid. 1002. However,
rule 1003 states that duplicates are admissible “to the same extent
as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the
original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to
admit the duplicate.” Id. R. 1003.

¶47 Here, Counsel could have reasonably decided that a best-
evidence objection would fail because the DVD was a permissible
duplicate under rule 1003. Accordingly, we see no basis for

20221058-CA 18 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

concluding that Counsel performed deficiently by opting not to
raise such an objection.

D. Personal Knowledge

¶48 Finally, Vine argues that Counsel should have objected to
the admissibility of the video clips under rule 602 of the Utah
Rules of Evidence, asserting that Lisa “did not have personal
knowledge of the events” depicted in the clips. He further asserts
that Lisa could not have laid foundation for the clips because she
did not know “what actually occurred during the entire time
period at issue.”

¶49 “A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is
introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has
personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal
knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony.” Id. R.
602. “In other words, a witness who does not have the
opportunity and the capacity to perceive the events in question
may not testify.” State v. Granere, 2024 UT App 1, ¶ 49, 543 P.3d
177 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 558 P.3d 87 (Utah 2024).

¶50 Vine argues that “the State was required to establish that
th[e] video clips were a true and accurate representation of the
events that took place that evening.” And he argues that the State
could not “rely on Lisa to lay foundation that the video clips
‘accurately reflected’ the events of the evening as Lisa was not ‘a
competent witness with personal knowledge of the facts’ of what
actually occurred during that entire time period at issue.”
(Quoting State v. Samora, 2021 UT App 29, ¶ 24, 484 P.3d 1206
(cleaned up).)

¶51 But Counsel could have reasonably decided that Lisa had
sufficient personal knowledge of the events in question to testify
accordingly. Part of Lisa’s testimony centered on her viewing the
videos after the night in question, and to lay the foundation for
this testimony, the State had asked Lisa whether the videos in

20221058-CA 19 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

evidence “fairly and accurately represent what [she] viewed from
[her] camera,” to which she answered in the affirmative.
Accordingly, Counsel could have reasonably determined that
Lisa possessed personal knowledge sufficient to offer testimony
about how the video clips were generated.

¶52 And to the extent Vine is asserting that Lisa lacked
personal knowledge of the relevant events because she had been
asleep or unconscious, it is unclear from Vine’s briefing what
exactly he thinks Counsel was supposed to object to. Even if Lisa
was asleep or unconscious, she was still competent to testify as to
what she knew; for example, she testified to setting up the camera,
viewing the recordings after the incident, finding blood around
her anus the morning after the incident, and confronting Vine
about the blood, to which Vine affirmed that he had anal sex with
her the evening before. None of this testimony was objectionable,
and Counsel could have reasonably determined that the fact that
Lisa had been asleep or unconscious during the video clips did
not form a basis for excluding those clips.

¶53 For all these reasons, then, we conclude that Counsel did
not perform deficiently in opting not to lodge pretrial evidentiary
objections to the admissibility of the video clips.

II. The Other-Acts Evidence

¶54 In his second ineffective assistance claim, Vine asserts that
Counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to—or by
opening the door to—the introduction of evidence that he refers
to as prior-bad-acts evidence that he believes was inadmissible
under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Vine focuses this
argument on six statements in Lisa’s testimony: (1) that she met
Vine at a rehab facility where they were both in treatment for drug
addiction; (2) that she suspected Vine was stealing from her; (3)
that twice previously, she had awakened to Vine trying to have
sex with her; (4) that on the day of this incident, both she and Vine
had been released from jail; (5) that Vine “ended up getting

20221058-CA 20 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

arrested” after the incident and “was in jail for a month”; and (6)
that she and Vine were involved in a separate domestic violence
case. With regard to the first five of these statements, Vine’s claim
fails because he has not demonstrated that Counsel performed
deficiently. With regard to the sixth, we agree with Vine that
Counsel performed deficiently by bringing the domestic violence
allegations into the case, but as discussed below, we conclude that
Vine has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by this error.

¶55 Rule 404(b)(1) of the Utah Rules of Evidence prohibits the
introduction of evidence “of a crime, wrong, or other act . . . to
prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular
occasion the person acted in conformity with the character.” This
subsection of the rule “recognizes the dangers of exposing a jury
to evidence of a defendant’s acts of prior misconduct—
specifically, the risk that the jury will infer that the defendant has
a reprehensible character, that [the defendant] probably acted in
conformity with it, and that [the defendant] should be punished
for [t]his immoral character in any event.” State v. Thornton, 2017
UT 9, ¶ 35, 391 P.3d 1016 (cleaned up). This forbidden line of
thinking is sometimes referred to as a “propensity inference”—
that is, if jurors are told that a person has acted in a certain way
on previous occasions, they may conclude that it is in that
person’s character to act that way and may conclude that, due to
this propensity, the person was much more likely to have acted in
conformity with that propensity on the occasion in question. See,
e.g., State v. Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 14, 328 P.3d 841 (cleaned up),
abrogated on other grounds by Thornton, 2017 UT 9.

¶56 But while evidence of a person’s other bad acts is generally
not admissible to prove propensity, rule 404(b) allows admission
of such evidence for other purposes, “such as proving motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Utah R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
Thus, “when past misconduct evidence is offered for any other
purpose—other than to suggest action in conformity with the bad

20221058-CA 21 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

character suggested by [a defendant’s] prior bad acts—such
evidence is admissible so long as it satisfies rules 402 and 403.”
Thornton, 2017 UT 9, ¶ 36 (cleaned up).

¶57 Against this backdrop, we address (in groups) the six
purported prior bad acts and assess whether Counsel performed
deficiently with regard to evidence of these acts and, if so,
whether Vine was prejudiced thereby.

A. Context Testimony

¶58 “Rule 404(b) applies only to ‘other’ acts,” meaning, “if the
evidence of prior acts is inextricably intertwined with the crime
that is charged, or if both the charged crime and the prior act are
considered part of a single criminal episode, then rule 404(b)
would not apply.” Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 14 n.7 (cleaned up).
“Rather, the act would be considered part of the case narrative
and have important probative value that bears directly on the
crime charged.” Id. Some cases have referred to this other
permissible purpose as the right of the parties “to show context,”
State v. Labrum, 2014 UT App 5, ¶ 22, 318 P.3d 1151, and “to
present evidence with broad narrative value beyond the
establishment of particular elements of a crime,” State v. Verde,
2012 UT 60, ¶ 28, 296 P.3d 673 (cleaned up), abrogated on other
grounds by Thornton, 2017 UT 9, and State v. Green, 2023 UT 10, 532
P.3d 930.

¶59 The first four acts in the list Vine identifies all appear to fall
into this category of contextual intrinsic evidence. Stated another
way, a reasonable attorney could have concluded that these four
acts do not constitute other-bad-acts evidence at all and that rule
404(b) therefore does not apply to them. These four facts—that
Lisa and Vine met in a substance abuse treatment program; that
Lisa was suspicious of Vine stealing from her and therefore
installed the camera; that Lisa had previously told Vine not to
have sex with her while she was asleep; and that both Lisa and
Vine were released from jail on the day the incident took place—

20221058-CA 22 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

are simply contextual details that are important to the narrative of
how the events in question unfolded. Moreover, at least some of
them have evidentiary value in Vine’s favor, and Counsel could
have reasonably decided to use these facts to assist Vine in
defending the case.

¶60 The first fact—that Lisa and Vine met at a substance abuse
treatment center—simply provided context for how the two met
and became romantically involved. And Counsel appears to have
tried to use Lisa’s history with methamphetamine for strategic
purposes, such as to undermine her claims of nonconsent on the
night in question and to undermine her credibility generally.

¶61 The second fact—that Lisa installed the camera in the
bedroom at her mother’s house because she suspected that Vine
had been stealing from her—likewise provides important context
for the events in question and provides a critical part of the
foundational evidence for admission of the video clips.

¶62 The third fact—that Lisa had previously told Vine not to
try to have sex with her while she was asleep—was highly
relevant to whether she had consented to the sexual contact in
question. While the text of Utah’s consent statute arguably doesn’t
allow a person to pre-authorize sexual contact while the person is
unconscious, see Utah Code § 76-5-406(2)(e) (stating that an
enumerated sexual act “is without consent of the victim” if “the
actor knows the victim is unconscious”), Lisa’s statement to Vine
is relevant to other theories of nonconsent, including situations in
which a “victim expresses lack of consent through words or
conduct,” see id. § 76-5-406(2)(a). Accordingly, this evidence had
“important probative value that [bore] directly on the crime
charged.” Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 14 n.7.

¶63 And the fourth fact—that Lisa and Vine were released from
jail on the day of the incident—was also important for context, as
it helped explain that Lisa and Vine hadn’t had direct contact for
several days before the incident. Moreover, it also had potential

20221058-CA 23 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

strategic value for the defense because it conveyed that Lisa too
had been released from jail on the day of the incident, thereby
possibly reducing her credibility with the jury.

¶64 Accordingly, a reasonable attorney could have believed
that these facts were admissible contextual details and on that
basis forgone any objection. Vine has therefore failed to carry his
burden of demonstrating that Counsel performed deficiently by
opting not to lodge objections to these matters.

B. Unsolicited Spontaneous Comments

¶65 Statements about two of the six acts in Vine’s list were
unsolicited and spontaneously uttered. That is, evidence of these
acts came before the jury in the form of comments that were
unresponsive to the questions put to witnesses. Under these
circumstances, a reasonable attorney could decide to forgo
making a motion to strike and asking for a curative instruction,
because such actions have the unfortunate consequence of
emphasizing testimony to which the jury might not have paid
much attention. See State v. King, 2024 UT App 151, ¶¶ 32–33, 559
P.3d 96 (“[D]ecisions regarding whether to move to strike and
seek a curative instruction are highly strategic ones that courts are
loathe to second-guess.”); see also State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173,
¶ 50, 453 P.3d 657 (“[A] curative instruction may actually serve to
draw the jury’s attention toward the subject matter of the
instruction and further emphasize the issue the instruction is
attempting to cure.”).

¶66 The fourth fact—that Vine had been released from jail,
along with Lisa, on the day of the incident—came out unsolicited.
The prosecutor asked Lisa where she was when the day began, a
question that did not seek information about Vine. Lisa
responded that she “woke up [that day] in jail” and was released
later that day. Without being asked or prompted, she added that
“[Vine] was released with me as well.”

20221058-CA 24 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

¶67 And the fifth fact—that Vine “ended up getting arrested”
after the incident and “was in jail for a month”—also came out
unsolicited. During cross-examination, Counsel asked Lisa
whether she had “decided to end [her] relationship” with Vine on
the day after the incident, and she stated that they initially
“decided to stay together” but that Vine “ended up getting
arrested” and, because of that, the two of them “didn’t really have
time to discuss” their relationship for a while, but that after Vine
“was released” a few weeks later, she told him she was “done.”

¶68 Both of these facts were contained in answers that were
unresponsive to the questions posed. In situations like this, an
attorney’s only active option is to move to strike the testimony
and ask for a curative instruction. But here, Counsel could have
reasonably decided not to do that, for reasons we have often
explained. See, e.g., King, 2024 UT App 151, ¶¶ 32–33. We therefore
see no basis for concluding that Counsel performed deficiently by
choosing not to take those actions.

C. The Domestic Violence Allegations

¶69 The sixth act in Vine’s list is somewhat more problematic.
Vine complains that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
asking questions that made the jury aware of the pending
domestic violence case against Vine in which Lisa was the alleged
victim. On this claim, we agree with Vine that Counsel’s
performance was deficient, but we reject Vine’s claim nonetheless
because Vine has not demonstrated that he sustained prejudice as
a result of Counsel’s conduct.

¶70 During his cross-examination of Lisa, Counsel was
exploring the reasons why Lisa went back and re-reviewed the
video clips, after initially looking at them and not finding
anything “too crazy.” Lisa had stated, during direct examination,
that she had been prompted to do so by a friend. But there was
some indication, in a police report, that Lisa had re-reviewed the
video at the behest of “the case officer” in “a domestic violence

20221058-CA 25 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

case.” Counsel asked Lisa about that sentence in the police report
and, in an attempt to impeach her, asked her whether it was really
true that she had reviewed the video again at the behest of a
friend. Lisa did not deny that the case officer had asked her to do
that, but she maintained that her re-review of the video was
“more so [at the] convincing of [her] friend.”

¶71 Counsel certainly had good strategic reasons to explore
with Lisa her motive for re-reviewing the video. Not only was
Counsel attempting to show that Lisa had testified incorrectly
during direct examination, but he was also attempting to show
that Lisa might have had an ulterior motive to go back and look
at the video clips again.

¶72 But Counsel could easily have done so without informing
the jury that the other case had to do with domestic violence
allegations by Lisa against Vine. For example, Counsel could have
asked Lisa whether she had been asked to review the video clips
by a case officer in an unrelated case. Indeed, Counsel conceded
as much during trial, explaining that he “probably shouldn’t have
mentioned the word ‘domestic violence.’” There was no strategic
reason for Counsel to have asked the question the way he did, and
a reasonable attorney would not have done so. On this basis, we
agree with Vine that Counsel performed deficiently by
introducing the unrelated domestic violence case to the jury.

¶73 Nevertheless, we agree with the State that Vine has not
demonstrated that Counsel’s decision was prejudicial. Prejudice
occurs when “there is a reasonable probability that, but for [an
attorney’s] unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different,” and a “reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). “Prejudice
analysis is counterfactual. To decide whether a trial affected by
error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have
to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the

20221058-CA 26 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42, 417
P.3d 86; see also State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25, 518 P.3d 157
(“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider whether, in the
absence of the improperly admitted evidence, the likelihood of a
different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine our
confidence in the verdict.” (cleaned up)).

¶74 We are simply not persuaded that, in a hypothetical
counterfactual trial in which the jury did not learn of the pending
domestic violence case involving Vine and Lisa, there would be a
reasonable likelihood of a different outcome. In this case, the
evidence of Vine’s guilt was strong. The jury viewed video clips
showing sexual contact between Lisa and Vine while Lisa was
apparently unconscious. The jury heard Lisa’s testimony that she
found blood around her anus the day after the incident and—
perhaps most notably—that when she confronted Vine about the
blood, he admitted to having anal sex with her while she was
asleep. The jury also heard Lisa’s testimony that she had told Vine
twice before not to have sex with her while she was unconscious.
For these reasons, the likelihood of a different outcome in a
counterfactual trial is not high enough to undermine our
confidence in the jury’s verdict in this case.

¶75 Accordingly, we reject Vine’s ineffective assistance claim
related to things he refers to as prior-bad-acts evidence.

III. The Jury Instructions

¶76 Finally, Vine asserts that Counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by not ensuring that the jury was properly instructed
as to the consent element of forcible sodomy. To convict a
defendant of forcible sodomy, the State must prove, among other
requirements, that the victim did not consent to the physical
contact. See Utah Code § 76-5-403(2)(a). In this case, the court gave
two instructions that, together, told the jury what the law requires
in this regard: an elements instruction that set forth the elements
of the crime of forcible sodomy, and a consent instruction that set

20221058-CA 27 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

forth the law regarding consent. Vine asserts that these
instructions contained two infirmities. First, he asserts that the
consent instruction included theories of nonconsent for which he
was not provided notice, and that it erroneously stated that the
jury was not limited to the theories provided. Second, he contends
that the two instructions, taken together, set forth an incorrect
(and lower) mens rea requirement for two of the theories of
nonconsent. For the reasons discussed, we conclude that Vine has
not demonstrated that Counsel performed deficiently by opting
not to object to these two instructions.

A. Theories of Nonconsent

¶77 Vine first argues that Counsel should have objected to the
consent instruction because it included theories of nonconsent for
which he was not provided notice and because it stated that the
jury was not limited by the theories of nonconsent listed.

¶78 The consent instruction included five theories of
nonconsent: “lack of consent through words or conduct”; lack of
consent “through the application of physical force or violence”;
lack of consent “through concealment or by the element of
surprise”; lack of consent because Vine “knew that [Lisa] was
unconscious, was unaware that the act was occurring, or was
physically unable to resist”; or lack of consent because Vine
“knew that as a result of mental illness or defect, or for any other
reason, [Lisa] was incapable at the time of the act of either
understanding the nature of the act or of resisting it.”

¶79 Vine contends that he was not provided notice for some of
these theories of nonconsent and that “no evidence” was
presented in support of those theories. Indeed, he argues that the
“only form of non-consent for which Vine was provided notice
was that he allegedly engaged in sex with Lisa while she was
unconscious” and, thus, the additional theories of nonconsent
were prejudicial.

20221058-CA 28 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

¶80 But Counsel opted not to raise a notice objection to
additional theories of nonconsent, and he apparently did so for
strategic reasons. Indeed, after the State proposed listing only one
theory of nonconsent, Counsel interjected and proposed a more
robust list of nonconsent theories than the State because, in
Counsel’s view, “limiting [the instruction] to just being
unconscious, unaware of the act, or physically unable to resist
limits it too much in what the jury would be able to consider.” For
example, regarding the “expressed lack of consent through words
or conduct” definition, Counsel explained that “[t]here’s 4,209
seconds of time that elapses between the start of the video clips
and the end of the video clips,” yet only “72 seconds of that time
period” were in evidence. As a result, Counsel argued that
because there was a gap in “what went on during the other 4,100
and some odd seconds,” the State “should have to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that [Lisa] expressed lack of consent through
words or conduct or not.” Counsel further explained that several
other nonconsent theories listed in the statute should be included
because “the same type of argument would apply.”

¶81 In our view, this strategy was not unreasonable. Indeed,
had the instruction been limited to the single unconsciousness
theory for which the State had provided notice, Counsel’s task
may have been more difficult given the video evidence. Not only
did Lisa appear unconscious in the video, but Lisa had testified to
being unconscious (or not remembering the events), and
Detective testified to Lisa appearing unconscious in the video.
Thus, Counsel could have reasonably decided that the jury
instruction should include more theories of nonconsent so that he
could attempt to dilute, or mask, the most potent one. While not
every reasonable attorney would have chosen this strategy, we
cannot say that Counsel’s choice was unreasonable.

¶82 And to the extent Vine argues that these theories of
nonconsent were unsupported by evidence, we note here that the
court expressly addressed that issue with Counsel. Counsel had

20221058-CA 29 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

asked for eight theories of nonconsent to be incorporated into the
instruction. Yet the court explained that it was unwilling to do
that because “including all of the factors is just absurd under some
of these circumstances.” That is why the court ruled that it was
“going to come down somewhere in the middle,” by adding some
additional theories Counsel had proposed and keeping “in many
of the factors the State has suggested.”

¶83 Vine also argues that Counsel should have objected to the
last two sentences contained in the consent instruction. Those
sentences provided as follows: “In deciding lack of consent, you
are not limited to the circumstances listed above. You may also
apply the common, ordinary meaning of consent to all of the facts
and circumstances of this case.” Vine argues that these sentences
impermissibly allowed the jury to “convict upon its own theory
of non-consent.”

¶84 Our supreme court, however, has explained that Utah’s
consent statute “does not define nonconsent” but instead “merely
limits the various theories of consent that might otherwise be
available.” State v. Barela, 2015 UT 22, ¶ 38, 349 P.3d 676 (cleaned
up). Indeed, “consent—or nonconsent, to put it in terms of an
element of a crime—is a fact-intensive, context-dependent
question, decided on a case-by-case basis,” and “our law has long
left [that question] in the hands of the jury.” Id. ¶ 39. The items
listed in the statute are simply “exceptions to the general rule,”
and represent a legislative determination that, as a matter of law,
“abuse is without consent of the victim under the circumstances
enumerated in the statute.” Id. ¶¶ 40–41 (cleaned up).

¶85 Indeed, we have stated that the consent statute “does not
preclude the fact-finder from determining that circumstances
outside those defined in the statute may still amount to lack of
consent in any particular case.” State v. Thompson, 2014 UT App
14, ¶ 90, 318 P.3d 1221 (cleaned up). And we have held that a
consent instruction that contained two catch-all sentences at the

20221058-CA 30 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

end remarkably similar to the two sentences at issue here was
entirely proper because it “correctly indicate[d] that the jury is not
prevented from determining that circumstances outside
those listed in the statute amount to lack of consent and that
the jury can consider whether the totality of the evidence supports
a finding of lack of consent under its common, ordinary
meaning.” Id. (cleaned up). It is also worth noting that the consent
instruction that Vine challenges was taken directly from MUJI. See
Model Utah Jury Instructions 2d CR1615 (2020),
https://legacy.utcourts.gov/muji/?cat=2 [https://perma.cc/3VQQ-
UCBC]; see also infra note 6.

¶86 In this situation, Counsel did not perform deficiently by
opting not to raise these two objections to the consent instruction.
Counsel had strategic reasons for wanting more theories of
nonconsent listed in the instruction, and Counsel could have
reasonably believed that any objection to the last two sentences
would readily be overruled given the state of the caselaw.

B. Mens Rea

¶87 Finally, Vine argues that the forcible-sodomy-elements
instruction, when read together with the consent instruction,
provided the jury with an incorrectly low mens rea requirement
for two of the listed theories of nonconsent.

¶88 The jury was instructed that, in order to find Vine guilty of
forcible sodomy, it had to find that Vine “acted: a. with
knowledge that [Lisa] did not consent; or b. recklessly as to
whether [Lisa] consented.” But two of the theories of nonconsent
listed in the consent instruction appear to require that Vine had
knowledge, and do not appear to allow conviction if Vine was
merely reckless. Specifically, the “unconsciousness” theory of
nonconsent requires that Vine “knew that [Lisa] was unconscious,
was unaware that the act was occurring, or was physically unable
to resist.” And the “mental illness” theory of nonconsent requires
that Vine “knew that as a result of mental illness or defect, . . .

20221058-CA 31 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

[Lisa] was incapable at the time of the act of either understanding
the nature of the act or resisting it.” From this, Vine posits that the
instructions as to those two theories of nonconsent are confusing
and that a jury could perhaps believe that it could convict Vine
under those theories if Vine were merely reckless as to Lisa’s
unconsciousness or mental illness. And Vine asserts that Counsel
should have pointed this out and lodged an objection.

¶89 But in this case, Counsel could have reasonably
determined that such an objection would have been futile because
the forcible sodomy and nonconsent instructions both accurately
stated the law. 6 Utah’s consent statute lists twelve situations—or
theories—in which a sexual act is, as a matter of law, deemed to
have been taken without consent, and notably, some (but not all)
of the theories incorporate a specific mens rea requirement.
Compare Utah Code § 76-5-406(2)(e) (“[T]he actor knows the victim
is unconscious . . . .” (emphasis added)), and id. § 76-5-406(2)(h)
(“[T]he actor intentionally impaired the power of the victim to
appraise or control his or her conduct by administering any
substance without the victim’s knowledge.” (emphasis added)),

6. Moreover, both the elements instruction and the
nonconsent instruction came directly from MUJI. See
Model Utah Jury Instructions 2d CR1609 (2015),
https://legacy.utcourts.gov/muji/?cat=2 [https://perma.cc/3VQQ-
UCBC]; MUJI CR1615. And these model instructions match the
statutes very closely. Of course, “the fact that [an] instruction
came from MUJI is not necessarily dispositive,” because the
model instructions “are merely advisory and do not necessarily
represent correct statements of Utah law.” State v. Wall, 2025 UT
App 30, ¶ 53, 566 P.3d 833 (cleaned up). But—at least in cases
where there is no clear law indicating that the MUJI instruction is
inaccurate—the fact that an instruction comes directly from MUJI
is a fact that can be considered in determining whether an
attorney rendered deficient performance in opting not to object to
an instruction.

20221058-CA 32 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

with id. § 76-5-406(2)(a) (“[T]he victim expresses lack of consent
through words or conduct.”). The consent instruction in this case
simply incorporated the statutory language. In other words, each
theory of nonconsent in the instruction accurately incorporated
the relevant mens rea—or lack thereof—from the statute.

¶90 Furthermore, the forcible sodomy statute’s consent
element does not include a specific mens rea requirement. See id.
§ 76-5-403(2)(a) (“An actor commits forcible sodomy when the
actor commits sodomy upon another individual without the other
individual’s consent.”). And when a mens rea requirement does
not appear in the relevant part of the crime, recklessness generally
suffices as a culpable mental state. See id. § 76-2-102 (“Every
offense not involving strict liability shall require a culpable mental
state, and when the definition of the offense does not specify a
culpable mental state and the offense does not involve strict
liability, intent, knowledge, or recklessness shall suffice to
establish criminal responsibility.”). Reading these two
instructions together, Counsel could have reasonably concluded
that recklessness in the forcible sodomy instruction applied to the
nonconsent theories that did not have a specific mens rea
requirement, whereas knowledge would apply to the theories that
expressly incorporated knowledge into their definition.

¶91 It is also relevant to our analysis that Vine, in his briefing,
makes no attempt to explain how these two instructions should
have been edited to remedy the situation. It is unclear whether
Vine is asserting that Counsel should have suggested edits to the
elements instruction, to the consent instruction, or both, or
whether Counsel should have suggested a third instruction that
clarified the issue separately.

¶92 Under these circumstances, where the instructions are an
accurate reflection of statutory requirements, come directly from
MUJI, and have a meaning that appears clear enough, and where
Vine does not suggest any specific fix, we conclude that Vine has

20221058-CA 33 2025 UT App 147
State v. Vine

not borne his burden of demonstrating that Counsel performed
deficiently by not objecting to these instructions. On this basis, we
reject Vine’s final claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

CONCLUSION

¶93 Vine has not demonstrated that Counsel rendered
ineffective assistance in any of the particulars he asserts. We
therefore reject his arguments and affirm his conviction.

20221058-CA 34 2025 UT App 147