Pedersen was charged and convicted of two counts of sexual assault. He appealed. He argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to make several motions. The Court affirmed that each missed motion could have been a tactical basis for each decision, and therefore there was a rational basis for the actions taken by counsel. Further, the Court of appeals affirmed that there was no showing of actual prejudice as a result of counsel’s actions. Next, Defendant challenged the trial court decision allowing testimony of another alleged victim because it is a prior bad act and therefore improper character evidence. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, finding the testimony to be appropriate evidence for a non-character purpose to show absence of mistake and intent.
Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/pedersen021910.pdf
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment