Appeals court hears arguments in Haynes appeal over alleged prosecutorial misconduct, lost memory evidence and 23B remand requests

The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in State v. Haynes (No. 20220420) on Wednesday, as the three judges considered challenges to the conviction that include alleged prosecutorial bolstering of witness credibility, destruction or loss of discoverable witness memory, and whether a remand under rule 23B is required to examine trial‑counsel decisions.

Andrea Garland, counsel for Jimmy Haines, told the panel the trial featured multiple instances of improper bolstering — including testimony from family members that they believed the complainant — and that rebuttal argument by the prosecutor misstated the law and denigrated evidence the defense relied on. Garland said the case depended on witness credibility and that those errors were prejudicial. She also argued the prosecution’s long delay between initial…