Appeals court hears argument that trial counsel failed to press self-defense in bench trial

Jessica Holzer, counsel for appellant Nicole Rosekranz, told the Utah Court of Appeals that Rosekranz received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to present or press a self-defense theory on two misdemeanor assault counts, even though Rosekranz’s testimony consistently described acting to protect herself. “Nicole received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to argue self defense on the assault charges,” Holzer argued at the start of oral argument.

Natalie Edmonson, arguing for the State, urged the court to apply Strickland’s presumption that counsel’s tactical choices are reasonable. She said the record showed trial counsel reasonably limited a self-defense argument to the aggravated-assault count because the defendant’s testimony at trial often denied using force and conflicted with earlier statements to officers. “Counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment,” Edmonson told the panel.

Judges pressed both sides about how the bench-trial setting alters the practical need to request jury instructions or to make specific arguments at closing. Holzer responded that the State had proffered jury instructions and that counsel had multiple other opportunities—directed-verdict motions and closing argument—to present self-defense. She argued those opportunities were not used, and the omission prevented a burden shift to the State that could have led to acquittal on the assault counts.

The panel also questioned whether the trial court’s verdict language—drawn from a verdict form—satisfied Rule 52(a)(1)’s requirement that a court sitting without a jury make findings of fact, or whether defense counsel’s conduct amounted to invited error that would bar appellate relief. Edmonson noted the verdict form language specifying that the court found the defendant guilty for “striking N.R. in the face causing her to suffer a black eye” and for “biting N.R. on the hand causing two of her fingers to bleed,” and argued those statements amounted to factual findings.

Both sides acknowledged gaps and ambiguities in the record; Holzer emphasized physical evidence and inconsistent statements by the victim as support for prejudice, while the State emphasized witness credibility and the judge-as-factfinder role in a bench trial. The court took the matter under advisement and announced a short recess before the next calendar item.