State v. Hassan

2026 UT App 132 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, Appellee, v. HAYDAR MOHAMED HASSAN, Appellant. Opinion No. 20240292-CA Filed August 27, 2026 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Amber M. Mettler No. 211908801 Erick Grange, Attorney for Appellant Derek E. Brown and Marian Decker, Attorneys for Appellee JUDGE JOHN D. LUTHY authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER and RYAN M. HARRIS concurred. LUTHY, Judge: ¶1 Haydar Mohamed Hassan was convicted on multiple charges for sexually abusing his stepdaughter, Anisa, 1 over the course of several years. He asserts on appeal that his trial counsel (Counsel) provided ineffective assistance in various ways and that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting bodycam footage of a police interview conducted at Anisa’s high school. None of his contentions are availing, so we affirm. 1. A pseudonym.  State v. Hassan BACKGROUND 2 Hassan Becomes Anisa’s Stepfather and Sexually Abuses Her After They Move to Utah ¶2 Hassan met Anisa’s mother (Mother) while both were Somali refugees in a refugee camp in Kenya. At that time, Mother was divorced with three children—Anisa, Anisa’s older half-sister (Sister), and Anisa’s older brother. Mother’s uncle arranged for Mother’s marriage to Hassan, although she later stated that she “didn’t even want to marry him.” In 2004, Hassan and Mother moved from Kenya to Salt Lake City with Mother’s three oldest children and two younger children she then shared with Hassan. ¶3 The family continued to grow, and when Anisa was in the third grade, the family moved to Magna. One day in the family’s Magna house, Anisa and two siblings were “picking [Hassan’s] chest hair”—“a mandatory thing [the kids] had to do”—when Hassan sexually abused Anisa. He had told the children to sit and lie next to him in his bed in the master bedroom and “pick at his chest hair,” and while they did this, he “insert[ed] his fingers inside [Anisa’s] vagina.” Anisa wore a gown that was “very open at the bottom,” providing “very easy access,” so Hassan was able to touch her inappropriately without removing her clothing. Neither Hassan nor Anisa said anything while Hassan had his fingers inside her vagina, and he kept his hand there for “two minutes or less.” This touching made Anisa feel “weird” and “so uncomfortable.” After Hassan removed his hand, the children continued “picking his chest hair” until they had finished. Mother was also in the room during this time, but she was sitting on a 2. “When reviewing a jury verdict, we examine the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict, and we recite the facts accordingly.” State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, n.1, 453 P.3d 657 (cleaned up). In so doing, “we present conflicting evidence only when necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” Id. (cleaned up). 20240292-CA 2 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan mattress on the floor while the bed Hassan and the children were on “was very high,” so Anisa was not sure Mother saw the touching. The Family Moves to West Valley City, Where Hassan Continues to Sexually Abuse Anisa ¶4 When Anisa was in sixth grade, the family—now comprising twelve children—moved to West Valley City. One day while living there, Hassan made a “hand gesture telling [Anisa] to come downstairs,” so Anisa went into the basement, where he “was waiting for” her. They went into the laundry room, and Hassan “pulled his pants down and then . . . had [Anisa] pull[] [her] pants down.” Hassan “bent [Anisa] over at [a] table” that was in the room. He stood behind Anisa and had her “touch[] his penis to pull it out,” and she felt “[h]is penis touching the back of [her] butt.” Then she felt his “slimy and wet” “penis inserting in [her] vagina from the back.” Neither Anisa nor Hassan said anything while his penis was inside her. Hassan then “had [her] pull[] up [her] pants and . . . told [her] to go back upstairs.” ¶5 On a different day, while Mother was cooking in the kitchen, Hassan gestured to Anisa to come to him. He took her to the master bedroom, where he “pulled [her] pants down and then laid [her] down” on his bed. He “rubbed his penis on [her] vagina.” He did not do this for long—“[i]t was . . . fast so he wouldn’t be caught . . . [and] so that nobody would come in.” The Family Moves Again and the Abuse Persists ¶6 When Anisa was in ninth or tenth grade, the family moved to a different house in West Valley City. While Anisa was in high school, Hassan would sometimes check her out of school, take her on a drive, and force her “to touch his private part.” She would be “sitting in the passenger’s seat[,] and he would grab [her] hand and . . . put [it] by his penis,” sometimes under the clothing and sometimes over it. He would “guide [her] and make [her] . . . feel on his penis” by “squeezing it” and “stuff like that.” He would 20240292-CA 3 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan also sometimes touch Anisa inappropriately in the car, including once when he parked next to a restaurant, gave Anisa his phone “to distract [her], and then . . . just [did] what he wanted to do,” which included “insert[ing] his fingers in [her] vagina.” It “[f]elt really disgusting, real weird” to Anisa. Anisa remained silent during the incident, as did Hassan. These instances when Hassan made Anisa touch his penis or molested her in the car happened “[a] lot.” Mother Discloses the Abuse to a Community Elder ¶7 Anisa had been scared to tell Mother about the abuse because she “felt like [Mother] wasn’t going to believe [her] and [Mother] didn’t want to hear” about the abuse. But at some point, Sister and Anisa together told Mother that Hassan had sexually abused them. 3 Mother “went and complained to an elder in the community” (Elder). 4 Elder “told [her,] ‘This is very, very ugly. 3. Sister testified at trial that Hassan sexually abused her as well. See infra ¶ 14. 4. It appears that elders play an important role in the traditional system of Somali customary justice, including in Somali communities within the United States. See Brenton D. Peterson & Manar Zaki, Sababi Inst., Reforming Somali Customary Justice: Pathways to Adapting Xeer Procedures and Practices 4 (Dec. 15, 2023), https://kpsrl.org/sites/kpsrl/files/2024-02/Reforming%20Somali% 20Xeer%20-%20Practices%20and%20Procedures.pdf [https://per ma.cc/78AS-8Q78] (“The Somali system of customary justice, xeer, plays a central role in Somali society, offering a vital avenue for dispute resolution. Coexisting with formal state-backed courts, xeer operates through clan elders who draw on precedent, Sharia law, and bilateral oral agreements between clans to adjudicate disputes and prescribe resolutions.”); Kamal Suleiman et al., Strategies and Sacrifices of Family Caregiving in the Somali-American Community: A Qualitative Study, 24 BMC Health Servs. Rsch. art. (continued…) 20240292-CA 4 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan Do not talk about it. We will talk amongst ourselves.’” Mother “told him [she would] call the police and tell them, but he told [her] not to do” that and said the community elders would handle the situation. Eventually, other elders informed Mother that Elder had died, and the issue was “just dropped.” Anisa Discloses the Abuse to a School Counselor ¶8 In 2016, while Anisa was in twelfth grade, Hassan attended a meeting with Anisa’s school counselor (Counselor) to discuss why Anisa was failing some of her classes. Mother was not present at the meeting. Anisa was upset to see Hassan at her school—she “hated him because of the things he would do to [her]” and believed that his actions were the reason she was struggling in school. After Hassan left, Anisa told Counselor that she hated Hassan. Counselor asked why, and Anisa said, “Because he sexually abuses me at home.” Counselor reported to on-campus police that she had received a report of abuse at Anisa’s home, and two officers came to the office to interview Anisa. During this interview, she did not answer their questions and instead remained silent, later stating that she was feeling “[v]ery sad and emotional . . . [b]ecause [of] what [she] had told” Counselor. ¶9 That night, police went to the family’s house. Hassan was not home at the time. Mother said Anisa “was lying,” which made Anisa feel “[u]nwanted” and “[w]eird.” 1186 (Oct. 4, 2024), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11 453006/ [https://perma.cc/J5BP-3JRL] (“Research on older Somalis in Canada and the US has revealed that even in their new North American communities, Somali elders have relied on their positions as counselors, decision-makers, and leaders to feel purpose and fulfillment in their old age.”). 20240292-CA 5 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan Anisa Moves to Pittsburgh, Visits Utah Some Years Later, and Reports the Abuse to Police ¶10 A protective order was issued against Hassan for Anisa, and Hassan did not return to the family’s house for a time. But a week or two later, Anisa learned that Hassan planned to “come back home,” so her extended family arranged for her to move in with her biological father in Pittsburgh. After she moved, Anisa “cut [Hassan] off completely from [her] life.” ¶11 Several years later, after Anisa had married and had a child, she visited Utah to celebrate her daughter’s third birthday. Anisa “wanted to visit [her] siblings and [Mother], but [she] couldn’t go to [their] house because [Hassan] was always present there,” and she refused to see him or allow him to see her daughter. Hassan would not allow Mother or the siblings to use the family car to visit Anisa. Anisa “got . . . mad” that her family was not permitted to attend her daughter’s birthday party, and she argued with Mother and Sister “because they kept listening to what [Hassan] had to say” and would not come see her. ¶12 When Anisa returned to Pittsburgh, she decided she was ready “to go forward with” reporting the abuse, and in 2021 she reached out to police in Pittsburgh to file a report. Anisa’s report led to Hassan being charged in Utah in August 2021 with several crimes. As relevant here, the State charged Hassan with aggravated sexual abuse of a child, rape of a child, object rape, and aggravated kidnapping. 5 5. Originally, the State charged Hassan with five other counts, but at trial, after the State rested, it voluntarily dismissed those counts. The jury acquitted Hassan of the aggravated kidnapping charge. Because the evidence forming the basis of that charge did not yield a conviction but is nevertheless relevant to an issue on appeal, we recite it separately below. 20240292-CA 6 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan The Case Goes to Trial, Where Sister Testifies that Hassan Sexually Abused Her as a Child ¶13 The case proceeded to a two-day jury trial, held in May 2023. During the trial, Anisa, Sister, Counselor, and Mother (through an interpreter) testified in accordance with the facts related above. The detective who investigated Anisa’s report in 2021 (Detective) also testified. Additionally, the State called as an expert witness a forensic-services manager with the Children’s Justice Center, who testified about the reasons children delay disclosing sexual abuse. ¶14 In addition to testifying about Anisa’s circumstance, Sister testified that Hassan had also sexually abused her when she was a child. She stated that one night in the family’s Salt Lake City house when she was nine or ten, she was asleep in her bedroom when Hassan came into her bedroom, touched her “[e]verywhere [on her] body,” and “penetrate[d] her genitalia” “[w]ith his penis.” Sister said she “couldn’t say anything” because he was covering her mouth so that she “couldn’t scream.” She recounted that Hassan did not say anything to her during this time. She said that she eventually pushed Hassan and he got off of her, and that she then “start[ed] screaming” and heard footsteps coming from Mother’s room. Mother also testified about this incident, saying that Hassan was leaving Sister’s bedroom when she arrived. Mother stated that she saw him “holding onto his clothes” and she “started talking to him angrily,” asking him what was going on. She said he replied, “I am sorry. It is not going to happen again. I apologize.” But Sister testified that Hassan sexually abused her at night in her bedroom “[m]ore than one time.” ¶15 Hassan testified in his own defense (also through an interpreter). He categorically denied sexually abusing Sister or Anisa. When asked to explain why Anisa might fabricate these allegations, Hassan explained that beginning in sixth grade, Anisa “started being late at the school [and] doing other undesirable things at the school” and that this was the source of “anger and 20240292-CA 7 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan . . . problems” between the two. Regarding Sister, Hassan testified that she had returned to live with him and Mother after getting a divorce, that she had come “back with [a] different attitude, with [a] severe change in personality,” and that they had experienced difficulties since that time. When asked to explain why Mother might have lied about seeing him coming out of Sister’s room, Hassan said, “This is what I think, I am suspecting . . . [that] she was told that I have a wife in Africa. And that is really what is driving her rage. And that she’s suspected I am . . . with another woman in Africa, and she wants to basically punish me for that.” Anisa Testifies About the Timing of the Laundry Room Incident ¶16 During Anisa’s testimony, when she was discussing the timing of the incidents at the family’s first West Valley City house, the following exchange occurred: Prosecutor: These incidents that you just testified about at the West Valley house, the incident in the laundry room and the incident in the bedroom, do you recall which grade you were in? Anisa: It was about seventh grade. Prosecutor: Do you recall how old you were at that time? Anisa: No. Prosecutor: Do you remember when you turned fourteen years old? Anisa: No, I just remember grades. . . . Prosecutor: Do you remember which grade you were in when you turned fourteen? 20240292-CA 8 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan Anisa: I was in, I believe, seventh or eighth grade. ¶17 On cross-examination, the following related exchange occurred: Counsel: Now, I would like to return to the point in time that’s about the seventh grade. And I’ll represent to you that seventh graders are twelve and turn thirteen typically, traditionally during their seventh grade year. So that would have been about 2011. Is that correct? Anisa: I don’t know what year it would have been. Counsel: Okay. But you don’t believe that’s inaccurate, the 2011/2012 school year? Anisa: I believe that’s accurate. ¶18 Anisa also testified that she was born in December 1998 and that she began kindergarten in the fall of 2004. And Hassan testified, “Whenever I have to go to the school where she was seventh grade, sixth grade, she would be eleven years old, twelve years old.” The Timing of Mother’s Disclosure to Elder Is Discussed ¶19 The prosecutor also sought to clarify the timing of Mother’s disclosure to Elder in relation to Anisa’s disclosure to Counselor. When referring to Mother’s disclosure to Elder, Anisa said, [Mother] had called the . . . preacher or something, or counselor, like more of a counselor for them, but he was a . . . preacher. So she has called him and she 20240292-CA 9 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan told him what we’ve told her because it was me and [Sister], we told her at the same time. And then she called the counselor, the . . . preacher, and then she told what happened to us. ¶20 Then the following exchange occurred: Prosecutor: So when you first told your mom and the preacher, counselor got involved, do you remember speaking to the police at that time? Anisa: Yeah. Prosecutor: Where was that? Anisa: Where? Prosecutor: Where did you speak to the police? Anisa: At my high school. Prosecutor: Okay. Was this after the meeting with the counselor? Anisa: Yes, the counselor has called the police to speak to me. The court: Just, which counselor are we speaking of? Are you going to clarify? Prosecutor: Yeah, so I want to clarify. You spoke earlier about the . . . preacher, so your mom went to a . . . preacher— Anisa: On the call. 20240292-CA 10 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan Prosecutor: Okay. After that, or in the immediate aftermath of that, did you speak to the police? Anisa: Yes. Prosecutor: Where? Anisa: At my mom’s house. Prosecutor: Was this before or after the meeting with your counselor at school? Anisa: After. Prosecutor: So the meeting with the counselor at school happened before? Anisa: I’m sorry. What? Prosecutor: The meeting with your school counselor, was it before or after the preacher became involved? Anisa: It was before. Prosecutor: So the meeting with the counselor at school came before? Anisa: After. Prosecutor: Sorry. I want to be clear. The meeting with your counselor at school, at [your high school], was that before or after the preacher became involved? Anisa: That was after. 20240292-CA 11 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan Prosecutor: So the preacher was involved before? Anisa: Yes. Prosecutor: And then how much time elapsed before the meeting with the counselor at school? Anisa: How much time— Prosecutor: Was it a short amount of time or a long period of time, do you remember? Anisa: With the counselor? Prosecutor: How much time elapsed between when the preacher became involved and the meeting with the counselor at your school? Anisa: Long. Prosecutor: More than a few weeks? Anisa: Like a year later. Anisa Uses the Phrase “Frame Him” ¶21 After discussing Anisa’s 2021 report to the Pittsburgh police, the prosecutor asked Anisa, “[A]t what point did you feel that you were able to come forward and talk about what happened? Do you remember when that was?” Anisa replied, “To [Mother] and [Counselor and Elder], that was the point. But like to actually frame him and get my justice was after my third birthday party for my daughter.” The following exchange then took place: 20240292-CA 12 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan Prosecutor: And when you say the episode with the birthday party upset you, it made you angry? Anisa: Because they will listen to him. And like he would not allow them to, like, take the car come visit me, stuff like that while I was there. Prosecutor: At any point did you ever lie to anyone about what Mr. Hassan had done to you? Anisa: Never. No. Prosecutor: Have you ever fabricated anything that Mr. Hassan did to you? Anisa: No. The State Plays Bodycam Footage of Anisa’s Police Interview at School ¶22 During Anisa’s testimony, the State sought to introduce bodycam footage taken when police interviewed Anisa at her high school after she disclosed to Counselor that Hassan was sexually abusing her. The video, which is about eight and a half minutes long, depicts a private office wherein a man (believed to be Anisa’s principal) sits behind a desk and Anisa sits in a chair in front of the desk. Two male police officers enter the room, one officer shakes Anisa’s hand, and the officers sit off to the side of Anisa and the principal (to her left and his right). One officer begins asking Anisa questions, including whether she met with Counselor that day and whether she has concerns about the wellbeing of her siblings. Anisa does not audibly respond to the officer’s questions. The officer twice says he cannot help Anisa if she will not talk to him. After the second time the officer says this, Anisa shifts her body toward the empty wall on her right and uses 20240292-CA 13 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan her headscarf to cover the side of her face that is toward the men. The officer continues to try to get Anisa to respond, but she sits silently. A couple of minutes into the video, Anisa takes a tissue from a box on the desk and wipes at her face, which is still covered by the headscarf. Toward the end of the video, the officer leans forward and the bodycam briefly captures Anisa’s leg bouncing. ¶23 Defense counsel (Counsel) objected to the video’s admission under rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, arguing that it had no probative value because it was uncontested that officers came to interview Anisa after she disclosed sexual abuse to Counselor and she did not answer the officers’ questions. Thus, Counsel argued, “[i]t just shows emotionality.” The State responded that the video was probative of Anisa’s emotional state in 2016 and would allow “the jury to understand how conflicted and how difficult the situation was for [Anisa].” The State argued that the video had further significant probative value in light of Hassan’s allegation that Anisa was fabricating these claims because she was angry at him “for other reasons.” The trial court agreed with the State, ruling that the video was probative to rebut Hassan’s fabrication defense. The court also stated that the case itself was emotional and that the video was not “more emotional than what [the jury had] already heard.” Thus, the court did not believe there was “really any prejudice at all, let alone unfair prejudice.” The court admitted the video. Witnesses Testify About the Incident Giving Rise to the Aggravated Kidnapping Charge ¶24 In addition to the incidents described above, Anisa testified regarding another incident—the one that formed the basis for the aggravated kidnapping charge. Anisa said that when she was in seventh grade, she had a boyfriend and on one occasion went to spend the night at his house but Hassan found out and brought her home. She testified that once she was home, Hassan and Mother took her upstairs to their bedroom and yelled at her. Anisa recounted that Hassan got a rope, made her sit in a “squat 20240292-CA 14 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan position,” and tied her hands and feet together with the rope. She said, “And then he told my siblings to go get the knife to threaten to slice my throat. . . . And then when they said that and everything, I got scared and I ran downstairs.” The prosecutor asked, “When you said you ran downstairs, what did that look like?” Anisa responded, “I managed to get the rope out of my hands ‘cause it wasn’t tied very tightly, and I ran downstairs.” The prosecutor followed up, “How about the rope on your feet?” Anisa replied, “[I]t was . . . kind of still on me, but like I still, like, got out and ran downstairs.” Anisa said that “they chased [her] downstairs” and caught her, that “they stripped [her] to [her] underwear[] and . . . bra,” and that Hassan started hitting her with a belt until she “got numb.” She claimed that Hassan “ordered [her] siblings to start beating [her],” which she said they did by “repeatedly punching [her] in the face . . . and hitting [her] with the belt to the point where [her] eye got swollen and [she] couldn’t see.” She said she did not go to school “for like a week” after this incident “because [her] eyes were so swollen and [she] had a black eye” that was “big and fat.” She explained that Hassan took her to a doctor about a week after the incident because her eye was still swollen but that Hassan “told [her] to lie to the doctor and say that one of [her] siblings just elbowed [her] in the eye when [they] were playing around,” which she did. Anisa testified that the “school cop” “took pictures of [her] abuse,” and she acknowledged that social workers conducted an investigation after this incident. ¶25 Counsel asked Sister “whether there was a time when [Anisa] was in the seventh grade that there was a conflict [between Anisa, Mother, and Hassan] over a boyfriend,” and Sister said there was. Counsel also asked whether Sister remembered Anisa having a black eye; Sister said she did, but she testified that Anisa got the black eye from a fight Anisa and Sister got into. When asked if Hassan hit Anisa, causing the black eye, Sister replied, “I don’t remember that part.” She also said she did not remember whether there was an incident where Hassan threatened to cut Anisa with a knife or forced her to strip to her 20240292-CA 15 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan underwear and had the siblings beat her. But she did recall Anisa coming to her and saying that Hassan was “punching her.” Sister also remembered that Anisa disclosed that Hassan was “touching [her] body” and “forcing [her] to do something that [she did not] want to do.” ¶26 Mother, too, testified about the incident regarding the boyfriend and about Anisa’s black eye. Regarding the boyfriend incident, she admitted that Anisa was bound with a rope, recounting, “We used the rope so we [could] keep her away from that young man.” When asked who tied Anisa up, Mother said it was Sister, explaining that Mother was pregnant at the time and Sister said she did not want Mother to lose the child or get hurt while arguing with Anisa. Mother said that Sister tied Anisa up for “a short time” and that they told Anisa to avoid the boy and focus on her schooling. But Mother did not recall any threat of a knife or Hassan telling the other children to beat Anisa. Of the black eye, she said, “That injury came from [Anisa] having a fight with [Sister].” ¶27 Detective testified that there was a Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) report filed in 2012 that “mentioned abuse and a black eye,” though it did not mention a threat with a knife. He also said there were medical reports from 2012 about a black eye. He did not recall seeing any photographs with the reports. Witnesses Express Confusion About a Statement Attributed to Anisa ¶28 Detective was asked about a note in the 2021 police report, which said that Anisa told police “that the stepdaughter of Mr. Hassan who was abused is now deceased.” Detective replied that this note was not his and that he “was confused by that statement.” He testified that he had spoken to Anisa himself during the investigation and that she had not said anything to him about anyone being deceased. ¶29 Anisa was also asked about this statement, through the following exchange: 20240292-CA 16 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan Prosecutor: Do you recall making a statement to a West Valley police officer that the person making [a claim of sexual abuse] was a stepdaughter of Mr. Hassan who is now deceased? Do you recall making that statement? Anisa: Deceased? Prosecutor: Yes. Anisa: What? Prosecutor: Yes. Did you make a statement to a police officer in 2021 that the person making the [claim] was a stepdaughter who was then deceased at the time of your conversation with the police in 2021. Do you recall saying that? Anisa: I don’t recall what you’re saying. Prosecutor: Okay. Would it surprise you to know that a West Valley City police officer recorded in his report that he was confused by the statement? Anisa: I’m confused myself. Who is deceased? You said stepdaughter who is now deceased. Prosecutor: Yes. You didn’t tell the police that? Anisa: No. Prosecutor: Never? 20240292-CA 17 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan Anisa: No. The Jury Is Instructed Not to Convict Hassan Based on Other Acts ¶30 After the close of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury. One jury instruction—Instruction 42—included this directive: [K]eep in mind that the defendant is on trial for the crimes charged in this case, and for those crimes only. You may not convict the defendant simply because you believe he may have committed some other acts at another time. The Jury Convicts Hassan on Three Charges and Acquits Him on the Aggravated Kidnapping Charge ¶31 During closing argument, the State indicated which incidents were tied to which charges. Specifically, the prosecutor informed the jury that count one—aggravated sexual abuse of a child—was based on Hassan touching Anisa’s vagina during the chest-hair-picking incident on his bed in the Magna house; that count two—rape of a child—was based on Hassan penetrating Anisa’s vagina with his penis in the laundry room of the first West Valley City house; that count three—object rape—was based on Hassan digitally penetrating Anisa after checking her out of high school while the pair were in the car parked next to a restaurant; and that count four—aggravated kidnapping—was based on Hassan tying Anisa up with a rope after picking her up from her boyfriend’s house. The jury convicted Hassan on the first three charges and acquitted him of aggravated kidnapping. ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶32 Hassan now appeals, asserting four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. “When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower 20240292-CA 18 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Reid, 2018 UT App 146, ¶ 17, 427 P.3d 1261 (cleaned up). ¶33 Hassan also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the bodycam footage of police interviewing Anisa at her high school. “We review the trial court’s determinations regarding the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Anderson v. Thompson, 2008 UT App 3, ¶ 25, 176 P.3d 464. ANALYSIS I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶34 Hassan contends that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance in four ways: (1) by failing to make a directed verdict motion asserting that Anisa’s testimony was inherently improbable; (2) by failing to move for a directed verdict on the rape of a child charge by asserting that the evidence did not establish that Anisa was under the age of fourteen at the time of the alleged crime; (3) by not asking the court to instruct the jury that it could not use evidence that Hassan sexually abused Sister as propensity evidence in support of the object rape charge; and (4) by not demanding a jury instruction clarifying that the jury could not convict Hassan based on evidence that he sexually abused Sister. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that “counsel’s performance was deficient” and that “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Defendants “must establish both deficient performance and prejudice, and if either is lacking, the claim fails and this court need not address the other.” State v. Bush, 2025 UT App 87, ¶ 20, 572 P.3d 449 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 585 P.3d 44 (Utah 2026). 20240292-CA 19 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan ¶35 To show deficient performance, a defendant “has the burden to overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” State v. Hunter, 2021 UT 44, ¶ 68, 496 P.3d 119 (cleaned up). “Deficient performance is not determined in a vacuum; rather, it involves asking whether the strategy counsel employed was that of a reasonable, competent lawyer . . . .” State v. Wilkes, 2020 UT App 175, ¶ 24, 479 P.3d 1142 (cleaned up). “The ultimate question is always whether, considering all the circumstances, counsel’s acts or omissions were objectively unreasonable.” State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 36, 462 P.3d 350 (cleaned up). ¶36 To demonstrate prejudice, “[t]he burden is on the defendant to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of his or her case would have been different absent counsel’s error.” Id. ¶ 43. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. (cleaned up). ¶37 We address each of Hassan’s claims of ineffective assistance in turn. A. Counsel’s Failure to Move for a Directed Verdict Based on the Argument that Anisa’s Testimony Was Inherently Improbable ¶38 We first consider Hassan’s assertion that Counsel should have moved for a directed verdict based on the argument that Anisa’s testimony was inherently improbable. ¶39 “Though [a trial] court must ordinarily accept the jury’s determination of witness credibility, when the witness’s testimony is inherently improbable, the court may choose to disregard it” when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Robbins, 2009 UT 23, ¶ 16, 210 P.3d 288. “[W]itness testimony is inherently improbable and may . . . be disregarded if it is (1) physically impossible or (2) apparently false”—or in other words, “incredibly dubious.” Id. ¶¶ 16, 18. “There are three 20240292-CA 20 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan hallmarks of inherently improbable testimony that courts have often considered in their analysis: material inconsistencies, patent falsehoods, and lack of corroborating evidence.” State v. Barnes, 2023 UT App 148, ¶ 24, 542 P.3d 108 (cleaned up). While “our supreme court has warned against inflexible reliance on these three factors” and “courts must . . . keep in mind that the proper test is, and always has been, whether reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime,” “courts are still allowed—and perhaps even encouraged—to examine these three factors.” Id. (cleaned up). We examine each factor here. 1. Material Inconsistencies ¶40 Hassan asserts that Anisa testified inconsistently “about when [Counselor] or [Elder] first became involved after she disclosed the alleged abuse.” We disagree. It is true that in the above-recited exchange between Anisa and the prosecutor discussing the timing of the disclosures to Counselor and Elder, it appears that Anisa went back and forth on which disclosure occurred first. See supra ¶¶ 19–20. However, from the context of the surrounding discussion, this was clearly due to a misunderstanding. Anisa said, “[Mother] had called the . . . preacher or something, or counselor, like more of a counselor for them, but he was a . . . preacher. . . . [S]he called the counselor, the . . . preacher, and then she told what happened to us.” The prosecutor then asked Anisa about “the preacher, counselor,” but his subsequent reference to the “counselor” was apparently to Counselor because he referenced a “meeting with the counselor” and there was no evidence of a meeting with Elder. The court appears to have realized that two people were being referred to as “counselor” when it asked for clarification. But then the prosecutor asked twice whether the meeting with Counselor occurred before Elder became involved, and Anisa gave conflicting answers. After the prosecutor again clarified, Anisa consistently said that the meeting with Counselor came after Elder became involved. The prosecutor then asked Anisa how 20240292-CA 21 2026 UT App 132  State v. Hassan much time elapsed between the events, and she clearly did not understand the question until it was repeated a third time, eventually answering that it was “like a year.” This exchange demonstrates that Anisa had difficulty understanding what the prosecutor was asking given (1) the use of “counselor” to refer to both Counselor and Elder, (2) the complex nature of the role Elder played—including acting like a counselor, and (3) English apparently being Anisa’s second language (as evidenced by Mother and Hassan relying on interpreters to testify, the fact that Anisa was going on six years old when the family moved from Kenya to the United States, and Anisa’s obvious confusion over some words, including “elapsed”). In short, this was not a true inconsistency, let alone a material one. ¶41 Hassan also claims that Anisa’s testimony was inconsistent as to “whether [he] touched her chest during the alleged incident where she claimed she was picking his chest hair.” Anisa testified that the sexual abuse began when Hassan “start[ed] touching [her] private parts[,] as in [her] vagina and [her] chest areas.” The prosecutor asked Anisa, “When was the first time you remember something like that happening?” And she replied, “I don’t remember exactly the first time, but I remember a period of time of what he