State of Utah v. Marco Antonio Corona, Opinion No. 20221117-CA, 2025 UT App 93, filed June 26, 2025, from The Utah Court of Appeals.
Quick Summary: In this case, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Marco Antonio Corona’s convictions for aggravated sexual abuse of a child, specifically rejecting his claims that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The decision reinforces the very high legal standards for proving both that a witness’s testimony is “inherently improbable” and that a lawyer’s error actually “prejudiced” the outcome of a trial.
Facts: Marco Antonio Corona was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child involving Rita, the eleven-year-old daughter of his cousin’s girlfriend. The abuse occurred after a party where Corona and other adults were drinking. Rita testified that Corona entered her room, sent his daughter out, asked about pregnancy, then got on the bed and physically assaulted her, causing pain, before she yelled and escaped. After fleeing, Rita was picked up by her Aunt, and Corona tried to stop her from leaving. Rita initially denied anything happened but later disclosed the abuse to her Aunt and Mother, who then reported it to the police.
During the trial, Rita testified, and her interview from the Children’s Justice Center (CJC) was played for the jury. She admitted that she had lied in her CJC interview about Corona slapping her, explaining she felt “rushed” and “needed to give a specific answer”. Corona’s defense counsel highlighted inconsistencies in Rita’s testimony and interview. Mother also testified, expressing that she was “upset and angry” and felt she “wasn’t there for [Rita] to protect her,” adding that they considered Corona “like part of the family” and he had a daughter around Rita’s age. The jury ultimately convicted Corona. Corona then appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective on two grounds.
Legal Issue(s): The Utah Court of Appeals had to decide two main questions concerning ineffective assistance of counsel:
1. Did Corona’s lawyer fail to provide effective assistance by not arguing that Rita’s testimony was “inherently improbable” (meaning, so unbelievable or contradictory that it shouldn’t be considered) and therefore there was not enough evidence to convict him?
2. Did Corona’s lawyer fail to provide effective assistance by not objecting to the Mother’s emotional testimony, which Corona claimed was unfairly prejudicial?
To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show two things: (1) that their lawyer’s performance was deficient (fell below a reasonable standard), and (2) that this deficient performance prejudiced the defense (meaning there’s a reasonable chance the outcome of the case would have been different without the error).
Holding: The Utah Court of Appeals rejected both of Corona’s claims and affirmed his convictions.
• On the “inherent improbability” claim, the Court found that Corona’s lawyer did not perform deficiently. They reasoned that:
◦ The standard for deeming testimony “inherently improbable” is extremely high in Utah, with only one case (State v. Robbins) ever successfully meeting it, and that case involved “extreme” circumstances.
◦ Reasonable attorneys would know that such a motion would “almost certainly fail” in this case.
◦ While Rita’s testimony had some inconsistencies (like the exact timeline or what happened immediately after the abuse), these were not “material” and were either about “tangential issues” or “matters of perception”. Simple conflicts or minor discrepancies in testimony do not meet this high standard.
◦ Rita’s admission that she lied about being slapped, and her explanation for it, did not automatically make her entire testimony inherently improbable.
◦ There was corroborating evidence for parts of Rita’s story, including multiple witnesses confirming Corona was drinking, Rita being upset, her Aunt picking her up, Corona following her, Rita asking about pregnancy, and Corona being in the room with Rita while his daughter was outside.
◦ Ultimately, Rita’s testimony did not “run so counter to human experience” that it should be disregarded. The Court emphasized that it is the jury’s role to weigh evidence and credibility, not the appellate court’s to re-evaluate it.
• On the Mother’s “improper testimony” claim, the Court focused solely on the “prejudice” element of ineffective assistance of counsel. They concluded that Corona could not demonstrate that he was prejudiced. The Court explained that:
◦ Even if the lawyer had objected and the testimony was excluded, there was not a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different.
◦ Mother’s testimony (her being upset, Corona being considered family, and having a daughter Rita’s age) was described as a “passing comment” that did not “meaningfully alter the evidentiary picture”. This information was either obvious or already known to the jury from other testimony.
◦ There was “abundant evidence” from Rita, Aunt, and other witnesses to support the jury’s decision, making Mother’s specific comments insignificant to the overall case.
Why It Matters: This decision is important because it reaffirms just how difficult it is to win a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Utah, especially concerning the two issues raised here.
• This case solidifies the extremely high bar for “inherent improbability” claims. This means that simply pointing out inconsistencies, or even admitted falsehoods (if explained), in a witness’s testimony is usually not enough to have it thrown out. The testimony must be truly unbelievable and uncorroborated, which is exceedingly rare.
• It clarifies that proving “prejudice” is also very challenging to prove. A lawyer’s mistake, even if arguably deficient, won’t lead to a reversal unless it significantly altered the entire “evidentiary picture” and there’s a strong likelihood the outcome would have changed. Minor or obvious statements from witnesses are unlikely to meet this standard.
• This case underscores the jury’s crucial role in assessing witness credibility and weighing evidence, a prerogative appellate courts are hesitant to disturb.
Takeaway for Defendants: While it can be disheartening to learn how high the bar is for overturning a conviction, this case highlights why having a strong criminal defense team from the start is critical. Your defense lawyer needs to be aware of these high standards and build a case that rigorously challenges the prosecution’s evidence and protects your rights effectively. Even if minor issues arise during a trial, the legal system generally focuses on whether the overall evidence supports the verdict and if any errors truly impacted the final decision. Experienced counsel understands these complex legal standards and can navigate the challenges of trial and appeal effectively to build your strongest defense.