[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6586171,"mediaKeyId","5550038-00d2ab8207003429ecb43ef26154eeea","parentId",5550038,"title","Utah Court of Appeals hears appeal in alleged exploitation and theft case over notice, unanimity and jury instructions","audioSeconds",1758,"startMs",1004000,"endMs",2762000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550038-00d2ab8207003429ecb43ef26154eeea&start=1004&end=2762","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550038-00d2ab8207003429ecb43ef26154eeea/thumbnail_1004000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6586171/Utah/Utah-Court-of-Appeals-hears-appeal-in-alleged-exploitation-and-theft-case-over-notice-unanimity-and-jury-instructions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586171-ff6567952db1973fb33aa25320df1195/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155001&Signature=nRFmo6zQtIdBPs3QDdydL~Os4n3CLFWbxcl2xztIpuSb8R7E8-9~SJ9kl~eUyGfeqQjiyku-Qdf62IyyXCCcp3f2824XU-F9de-Y~u0eNSh9cXW8oFIqgNcZzF4T6ev-jS7FJ7wXz5DYlZfQrYLEtkV7eSzeKTy9~QITPUOKwu68zu1Ys5HI08SAxRfnAvTysZdS5D8V4vrLGgO8UdNMZq2~r0lktl3NPzGBb5hcFE0Cs3BljhYA5EOJDpaWRg2vm6Hl1KLTC2qCYsXGxhUVlm4HYXyyyYyfoWKOp0hYs84xgB~Zf3OusXp-I-NNIgnp3L5eFF37jwWmYK888pesfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Court of Appeals","date","2025-08-05T00:00:00Z","article","A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument on an appeal brought by Debbie Yourren, who was convicted on charges including exploitation of a vulnerable adult and theft. Appellant counsel argued the state failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice through a bill of particulars and that the trial record left open a unanimity problem that requires reversal or further proceedings.

The issue at the center of argument was whether the prosecution’s pretrial disclosures and the trial court’s handling of procedural requests gave Yourren fair notice of the state’s precise theory and, relatedly, whether the jury was required to be unanimous about which particular acts supported a multi-act theft or exploitation count. Appellate counsel said the bill of particulars and other pretrial materials left the defense unable to prepare and that the district court’s refusal to adopt a defense special verdict form — and the absence of an instruction tying jurors to a single incident — meant the jury could have convicted without agreeing on the same underlying act.

Appellant’s argument

Appellant counsel (identified in the transcript as Miss Taliaferra) told the court the prosecution presented a “throw everything against the wall” theory that forced the defense to prepare for many different contingencies. Counsel said the defense requested a bill of particulars more than once and that the instrument the court supplied did not meaningfully narrow the state’s theory. Counsel argued that, as a result, pretrial preparation and the trial itself were prejudiced: the defense had to present cross-examination and testimony against multiple hypothetical theories rather than a focused defense to a single, identified act or set of acts. Counsel also said the defense filed a special verdict form that would have required the jury to identify which incidents supported each count and that the court’s rejection of that form — coupled with no unanimity instruction about incidents — left the convictions vulnerable on appeal.

Counsel further contended the “single larceny” aggregation rule ought not to swallow distinct wrongdoing when the alleged acts differ in kind (for example, transfers of real property, post-death withdrawals, and grazing-permit actions). Counsel argued that the exploitation statute’s $5,000 threshold means the jury must be tied to a particular unit of prosecution or shown to have unanimously agreed on the incidents that aggregate to that dollar amount; without that specificity, the defense said, the verdict cannot stand. Appellant also raised related claims that trial counsel’s special-verdict request and objections were preserved adequately and, alternatively, that any preservation failure warranted either plain-error relief or a finding of ineffective assistance.

State’s response and legal framing

The state, represented at oral argument by William Haynes, told the panel that even if the trial court had used narrower language in pretrial filings or the defense had asked differently, the substantial record (information, preliminary-hearing testimony and other sources) provided notice and that the outcome would not have been different. The state argued that the unit of prosecution for the exploitation statute is the victim and that multiple misuses of the same victim’s resources can be aggregated to a single count when they form a common plan or scheme. On the theft count, the state pressed that single-larceny doctrine and evidence of a continuous scheme narrowed the legal inquiry and that the jury need not be told to pick only one of many acts when the law treats the conduct as an aggregate offense.

Several statutory and precedential lines were litigated in the argument: counsel debated the Bell standard for prejudice in notice cases versus the higher harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard applied when a defendant raises a constitutional claim that was not preserved; the panel questioned where Chadwick, Hummel, Taylor and more recent decisions (including a 2024 Baugh citation raised by appellant) fit in the preservation/ plain-error analysis. The panel probed whether simply submitting a special verdict form preserved a unanimity claim or whether counsel needed to obtain a more explicit ruling (or use the word “unanimous” or “unanimity”) to preserve the point for appeal.

Procedural posture and next steps

After extended questioning from all three judges about preservation, the scope of the single-larceny doctrine, the scope of the exploitation statute and whether defense counsel’s actions preserved the claims, the panel took the case under advisement. At the close of the argument the court indicated it would issue a decision in due course.

Why it matters

The appeal presses legal questions that recur in prosecutions that allege multi-act financial wrongdoing: how specific must pretrial notice be, what procedural steps preserve a unanimity challenge, and when multiple acts may be charged or treated in the aggregate. The answers affect how prosecutors charge multi-transaction schemes, how trial counsel prepares special-verdict requests and unanimity instructions, and what appellate showing is required to reverse convictions on notice or unanimity grounds.

Speakers

- Ryan Tenney — Judge, Utah Court of Appeals (chairing panel) (government)
- Amy Oliver — Judge, Utah Court of Appeals (government)
- Greg Orm — Judge, Utah Court of Appeals (appearing remotely) (government)
- Miss Taliaferra — Appellant counsel for Debbie Yourren (unknown)
- William Haynes — Counsel for the State (government)

Authorities

- court_case: Bell (referenced_by:[\"yoren-exploitation-theft-appeal\"])
- court_case: Chadwick (referenced_by:[\"yoren-exploitation-theft-appeal\"])
- court_case: Baugh (2024) (referenced_by:[\"yoren-exploitation-theft-appeal\"])
- court_case: Taylor (referenced_by:[\"yoren-exploitation-theft-appeal\"])
- court_case: Hummel (referenced_by:[\"yoren-exploitation-theft-appeal\"])
- statute: exploitation-of-a-vulnerable-adult statute (threshold $5,000; exact citation not specified) (referenced_by:[\"yoren-exploitation-theft-appeal\"])
- court_case: Strickland (referenced_by:[\"yoren-exploitation-theft-appeal\"])

Clarifying details

- $5,000 threshold: the exploitation count discussed turns on whether aggregate misuse \"exceeds $5,000\".
- Special verdict form: defense submitted a special verdict form; the district court said \"I don't think we need it\" (record cited at trial record page ~2287 in argument).
- Trial narrowing: at directed-verdict stage the state limited the theft charge to transactions after the victim's death (as described in argument).
- Preservation posture: panel repeatedly questioned whether merely submitting a verdict form preserved unanimity or whether counsel had to explicitly argue unanimity before the trial court.

Proper_names

[{\"name\":\"Utah Court of Appeals\",\"type\":\"agency\"},{\"name\":\"Ryan Tenney\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"Amy Oliver\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"Greg Orm\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"Debbie Yourren\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"Bill Henroyd\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"Miss Taliaferra\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"William Haynes\",\"type\":\"person\"}]

Community_relevance

- geographies: [\"Utah\"]
- impact_groups: [\"defendants in multi-transaction financial prosecutions\",\"criminal defense attorneys\",\"prosecutors\"]

Meeting_context

- engagement_level: {\"speakers_count\":6,\"duration_minutes\":~120,\"items_count\":1}
- implementation_risk: \"low\"
- history: [{\"date\":\"not specified\",\"note\":\"Appeal argued, decision to follow\"}]

searchable_tags:[\"criminal appeals\",\"exploitation of vulnerable adult\",\"unanimity\",\"special verdict\",\"single larceny\",\"notice\",\"bill of particulars\",\"Utah Court of Appeals\"]

provenance:{\"transcript_segments\":[{\"block_id\":\"b1004.475\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":120,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"We have 2 cases set for argument today. The first of which is state versus I'm gonna let you pronounce the last name for me the first time.\",\"tc_start\":\"00:16:44\",\"tc_end\":\"00:17:44\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"},{\"block_id\":\"b2762.125\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":120,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"We will do our very best issue decision as soon as we can. Without the case, we'll be submitted.\",\"tc_start\":\"00:45:62\",\"tc_end\":\"00:46:02\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}]}

salience:{\"overall\":0.62,\"overall_justification\":\"Appeal addresses core criminal-procedure questions (notice/unanimity) that commonly affect convictions and appellate standards.\",\"impact_scope\":\"regional\",\"impact_scope_justification\":\"Issues govern Utah trial and appellate practice and could influence charging and defense strategy statewide.\",\"attention_level\":\"medium\",\"attention_level_justification\":\"Practitioners and defense bar will track outcome; limited immediate public policy impact.\",\"novelty\":0.3,\"novelty_justification\":\"Doctrinal application of existing doctrines rather than novel statutory interpretation.\",\"timeliness_urgency\":0.45,\"timeliness_urgency_justification\":\"Case already on appeal; decision will affect ongoing and future cases but is not emergency.\",\"legal_significance\":0.67,\"legal_significance_justification\":\"Could change how unanimity and notice preservation are applied in multi-act prosecutions.\",\"budgetary_significance\":0.0,\"budgetary_significance_justification\":\"No budgetary impacts noted.\",\"public_safety_risk\":0.0,\"public_safety_risk_justification\":\"No immediate public safety implications.\",\"affected_population_estimate\":1000,\"affected_population_estimate_justification\":\"Estimate of Utah criminal defendants and attorneys affected annually.\",\"affected_population_confidence\":0.4,\"affected_population_confidence_justification\":\"Rough projection based on typical number of related prosecutions per year.\"}, ","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20220571 State v. Youren audio file","oneSentenceSummary","A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the appeal by Debbie Yourren, who was convicted on charges including exploitation of a vulnerable adult and theft.","taxTitle","Utah Court of Appeals Live Stream, Utah Appellate Court, Utah Judicial Branch, Utah","taxId",76036,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6586167,"Appeals court hears Mendoza claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking medical expert and for failing to object to state's expert",2687,4594000,7281000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550038-00d2ab8207003429ecb43ef26154eeea&start=4594&end=7281","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550038-00d2ab8207003429ecb43ef26154eeea/thumbnail_4594000.jpg","/articles/6586167/Utah/Appeals-court-hears-Mendoza-claim-that-trial-counsel-was-ineffective-for-not-seeking-medical-expert-and-for-failing-to-object-to-states-expert","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586167-0ccf8658e1ef696f7f8b2f77bd9b1658/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155001&Signature=jnx2h8Ty9MthIPPrQVPfbdZ8ChUQnGBMONNXyI9Rf5SUibAiEc8hQhgxy9qa69XLH9rgGOWjjEBOhrkhWLxvwm3kr2y6dhgtxTPlHsGqFin~z8a38RhO4Mkd1dYCd1Tm4Our7X4X6MDvC2~Uh2FxVc0XVsrDqTLJzqoABclKElSdA-mnYmpcLjzbm7kJXbyxxQF23kjs~S-cafbRXV0XsEIkl90z2f370mo5rqYAX~hUtCDEU1Qr7cAg6myvQFRLcjwLaKA3FwgWPE268-ABpHf35~kg~YLAfqi7ajTrxV50cgYrhEY12USqrYiC76CF9QScMP~v3exlyQJ2tgmucQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in State v. Mendoza, where the appellant seeks relief based principally on an asserted failure by trial counsel to investigate and present medical evidence and by not timely objecting to the scope of the prosecution’s expert witness.

Appellant’s position and 23B proffer

Defense counsel Davis Pope told the court the defendant’s primary trial defense was that a medical condition — three testicular hernias described in later medical records — would have made sexual contact or certain sexual acts unlikely or physically painful and thus undermined the prosecution’s claims. On appeal, counsel asked the court either to reverse directly or to remand under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 23B to develop record evidence (affidavits and an expert examination) that was not presented at trial. The 23B proffer included a declaration from a nurse practitioner (identified in the record as Jeanette Carver) who said she had reviewed post‑trial medical records from the Department of Corrections and would, if permitted, explain how the injuries described would likely reduce sexual drive and make sustained erection unlikely. Defense counsel argued that the nurse’s proffered testimony would corroborate the defendant’s testimony and that failing to develop that testimony at trial showed ineffective assistance.

State’s response and thresholds for remand

The state, represented by Daniel Day, argued the proffer could not support a remand. The state noted the records relied on by the proffer post‑date the trial (a surgery in 2023) and said the items could not have been presented at trial; the state also contended the nurse practitioner’s affidavit, as filed, was too speculative to establish a Strickland prejudice showing and that the nurse may lack the specialized qualifications (for example, urological training) to opine about erectile function or sexual drive. On the question of the blind expert that the state called at trial to explain victim behavior in child abuse cases, counsel for the state pointed to State v. Francis and related Utah precedent permitting a qualified “blind” expert who does not evaluate credibility but can explain typical victim responses; the state argued defense counsel reasonably could have concluded a challenge to that expert under Rule 702 would not succeed and therefore declining to press certain pretrial Rule 702 fights did not equal deficient performance.

Procedure, counsel questioning and Strickland framework

The judges focused on multiple procedural and evidentiary thresholds. They asked whether the 23B affidavit showed what trial counsel did or did not do (the record lacks an affidavit from trial counsel explaining his strategic choices), whether the proffered expert is qualified under Rule 702 to opine about the physical effects the defense relies on, and whether ordering a remand would meaningfully advance the record or only produce another round of expert dueling. The panel also wrestled with whether counsel’s failure to seek or to present an expert could be explained by reasonable strategy (for example, fear of rebuttal experts or viewing the defendant’s own testimony as preferable to an expert), and whether remand would be appropriate in light of Strickland’s deference to reasonable tactical decisions.

Outcome and significance

After extended questioning, the panel took the matter under submission. The argument highlighted two frequent appellate themes: the difficulty of proving ineffective assistance on direct appeal absent record evidence about counsel’s reasons for chosen tactics, and the limited role of post‑trial proffers that rely on records created after trial. The judges emphasized that a remand under Rule 23B typically requires a proffer that, if believed, would create a plausible claim of ineffective assistance; the state and the judges questioned whether the current affidavit and records meet that standard without additional records or a statement from trial counsel.

Speakers

- Ryan Tenney — Judge, Utah Court of Appeals (chairing panel) (government)
- Amy Oliver — Judge, Utah Court of Appeals (government)
- Greg Orm — Judge, Utah Court of Appeals (government)
- Davis Pope — Appellant counsel for Mr. Mendoza (unknown)
- Daniel Day — Counsel for the State (government)
- Jeanette Carver — Nurse practitioner (proffered expert; affidavit referenced) (nonprofit/health)

Authorities

- court_case: State v. Francis (Rule 702 / blind expert precedent) (referenced_by:[\"mendoza-ineffective-assistance-23b-expert\"])
- court_case: State v. Burnett (referenced_by:[\"mendoza-ineffective-assistance-23b-expert\"])
- court_case: Hales (referenced_by:[\"mendoza-ineffective-assistance-23b-expert\"])
- court_case: Strickland v. Washington (U.S. Supreme Court) (referenced_by:[\"mendoza-ineffective-assistance-23b-expert\"])
- other: Utah Rule 23B (postconviction/record‑development remand) (referenced_by:[\"mendoza-ineffective-assistance-23b-expert\"])
- other: Rule 702 (expert witness admissibility) (referenced_by:[\"mendoza-ineffective-assistance-23b-expert\"])

Clarifying details

- Jail/medical records proffer: defense proffer identified three testicular hernias that were surgically repaired in 2023; those records post‑date the trial and thus could not have been introduced at trial.
- Affidavit specifics: proffered nurse-practitioner affidavit (paragraphs cited in argument) said the records corroborate the defendant’s claim and that the pain would \"likely decrease\" sexual drive and make a sustained erection unlikely (transcript cites paragraphs 11, 16–17 of the affidavit).
- Trial record: the defense put the defendant on the stand and elicited testimony about the medical condition at trial, but no medical records or medical expert testimony were admitted at trial.

Proper_names

[{\"name\":\"Mr. Mendoza\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"Davis Pope\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"Daniel Day\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"Jeanette Carver\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"name\":\"Utah Department of Corrections\",\"type\":\"agency\"},{\"name\":\"Utah Court of Appeals\",\"type\":\"agency\"}]

Community_relevance

- geographies: [\"Utah\"]
- impact_groups: [\"defendants in sexual-abuse cases\",\"criminal defense attorneys\",\"appellate practitioners\"]

Meeting_context

- engagement_level: {\"speakers_count\":6,\"duration_minutes\":~140,\"items_count\":1}
- implementation_risk: \"medium\"
- history: [{\"date\":\"not specified\",\"note\":\"Rule 23B proffer and direct appeal both advanced; panel to decide\"}]

searchable_tags:[\"ineffective assistance\",\"Rule 23B\",\"expert admissibility\",\"Rule 702\",\"State v. Francis\",\"post-trial medical records\",\"sexual assault defense\",\"Utah Court of Appeals\"]

provenance:{\"transcript_segments\":[{\"block_id\":\"b4594.27\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":120,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"This will be time for argument on our second case of the morning, which is state versus Mendoza.\",\"global_start\":4594,\"global_end\":4612,\"tc_start\":\"01:16:34\",\"tc_end\":\"01:16:52\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"},{\"block_id\":\"b7281.015\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":120,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"We will do our very best issue decision as soon as we can. With that, the case will be submitted.\",\"global_start\":7276,\"global_end\":7281,\"tc_start\":\"02:01:16\",\"tc_end\":\"02:01:21\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}]}

salience:{\"overall\":0.55,\"overall_justification\":\"Claims raise common appellate problems about post‑trial proffers, counsel performance and expert admissibility that can trigger remands or counsel‑investigation standards.\",\"impact_scope\":\"regional\",\"impact_scope_justification\":\"Decisions affect Utah criminal practice and Rule 23B remand standards.\",\"attention_level\":\"medium\",\"attention_level_justification\":\"Important to defense community and appellate courts; limited broader public interest.\",\"novelty\":0.35,\"novelty_justification\":\"Applies existing Strickland and Rule 702 standards to a fact‑specific proffer rather than creating new law.\",\"timeliness_urgency\":0.4,\"timeliness_urgency_justification\":\"Decision matters for this defendant and counsel decisions in similar cases, but is not emergent.\",\"legal_significance\":0.6,\"legal_significance_justification\":\"Could clarify how 23B proffers and post‑trial records bear on ineffective‑assistance claims.\",\"budgetary_significance\":0.0,\"budgetary_significance_justification\":\"No budget impact.\",\"public_safety_risk\":0.0,\"public_safety_risk_justification\":\"No direct public safety implication.\",\"affected_population_estimate\":500,\"affected_population_estimate_justification\":\"Estimate of Utah criminal defendants in similar evidentiary postures annually.\",\"affected_population_confidence\":0.3,\"affected_population_confidence_justification\":\"Rough estimate; case‑specific.\"}, ","The Utah Court of Appeals heard arguments in State v. Mendoza, in which defense counsel argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present medical evidence about the defendant's alleged testicular hernia and for not timely objecting to the state's \"blind\" child-abuse expert.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Utah Court of Appeals hears appeal in alleged exploitation and theft case over notice, unanimity and jury instructions

Appeals court hears Mendoza claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking medical expert and for failing to object to state's expert