State v. Munguia

2026 UT App 155 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, Appellee, v. HECTOR LABASTIDA MUNGUIA, Appellant. Opinion No. 20240908-CA Filed October 16, 2026 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Mark S. Kouris No. 221907704 Freyja Johnson and Hannah K. Leavitt-Howell, Attorneys for Appellant Derek E. Brown and Alexandra Herlong, Attorneys for Appellee JUDGE DAVID N. MORTENSEN authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and AMY J. OLIVER concurred. MORTENSEN, Judge: ¶1 Lucy awoke to find her clothing askew and Hector Labastida Munguia hovering over her with his hand between her legs. 1 Over the next day or so, Lucy told multiple people about the assault. Testimony at trial from these individuals included what Lucy had told them, but Munguia’s trial counsel (Counsel) did not—for the most part—lodge hearsay objections. Munguia now claims that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by this failure. We reject this claim and affirm Munguia’s conviction. 1. Apart from Munguia, we anonymize or use pseudonyms for all individuals mentioned in this opinion.  State v. Munguia BACKGROUND 2 Sexual Assault ¶2 Munguia and Lucy socialized at a local bar on a regular basis. They occasionally spent time together outside the bar when they would go to Lucy’s apartment, though their relationship was not intimate. However, one time at Lucy’s apartment—after drinking—Munguia lifted Lucy up on a counter, angering Lucy and resulting in an apology from Munguia. Munguia tried to kiss Lucy on another occasion in an apparent attempt to console her when she was upset. This unsolicited move again angered Lucy and led to another apology from Munguia. Lucy told Munguia that she no longer wanted to be friends because he did not listen when she told him no. Even so, the two continued to frequent the same bar. ¶3 After a month or so, the two reconciled. Lucy agreed to resume their friendship provided that Munguia respect its strict platonic parameters. The next evening, Lucy and her friend (Friend) were at the bar and found Munguia there. Lucy asked him to go with them to another bar. At some point, Friend departed because of work responsibilities the next morning. Lucy and Munguia eventually returned to her apartment to continue drinking. While there, the two sat together on her bed watching videos, but they did not have any physical or romantic interaction. ¶4 Around 4:00 a.m., Lucy awoke and tried to get Munguia out of her apartment by calling an ex-boyfriend (Ex-Boyfriend) to come over to her place and take him home because neither she nor 2. “On appeal, we review the record facts in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and recite the facts accordingly. We present conflicting evidence only as necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 2, 10 P.3d 346 (cleaned up). 20240908-CA 2 2026 UT App 155  State v. Munguia Munguia had a car and because Lucy felt awkward about asking him to leave at that hour. Ex-Boyfriend declined to assist because he was too far away. Lucy then fell back asleep. ¶5 Later, Lucy awoke in pain when she felt something inside her vagina. At first, she thought she was dreaming, but then the painful feeling increased, progressing from a sensation of “light pressure” to something that was “hard,” “fast,” and “scratchy.” Once she was fully awake, she saw that her shorts had been pulled down to her knees and her shirt had been pushed up below her breasts, leaving her “stomach and [her] vaginal area” exposed. And there was Munguia—crouched over her with his arm between her legs. ¶6 Realizing what was happening, Lucy “freak[ed] out” and yelled at Munguia, “What the fuck are you doing?” An apparently startled Munguia responded, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Can we talk about it?” Lucy grabbed her phone and ran out of her apartment, with Munguia “just apologizing the whole time.” ¶7 While outside her apartment, Lucy called Ex-Boyfriend. He later described her “crying and screaming,” saying that she “woke up” with someone “on top of her” and that he “was inside of her.” Ex-Boyfriend said that he didn’t know who Lucy was talking about but that it was “pretty obvious” that the incident had “just happened.” ¶8 Lucy next called her brother (Brother), who was eighteen years old and riding the train on his way to school. He later described Lucy’s voice as “scared and exacerbated” as she told him that she had been “assaulted” by someone who had “touched” her “vagina.” Brother got off the train and went to meet her. Brother later said that while they were outside of her apartment, Lucy told him she had just received a text. This text was from Munguia, and it read, “Hey, can we talk? I’m sorry. Please.” Brother apparently did not see the text, but he did check Lucy’s apartment to verify that it was safe for her to return. 20240908-CA 3 2026 UT App 155  State v. Munguia ¶9 Later that same morning, Lucy called her boyfriend (Boyfriend), who was out of town. He described her as very “distraught” and “emotional,” and he related what she told him as follows: [Munguia] and her were hanging out at the bar the night before and then closing time came and people weren’t done hanging out, so they went over to her house. And then the night just got long and everybody went to sleep. And then she woke up having sensations that there was something happening to her. And she basically just kind of like, ran out of the apartment apparently and then started calling to get some help. ¶10 That afternoon, Lucy messaged Friend, and she later related what Lucy told her as follows: “[S]he invited [Munguia] over to spend the night, because they were both drunk. And that she suspected that he had—she woke up and he was inside her, and she didn’t know what to do and was freaking out.” Friend took Lucy to the hospital for a sexual assault examination. ¶11 A sexual assault nurse examiner (Nurse) documented an abrasion on Lucy’s left arm, a bruise on her right wrist, several bruises on her knees and legs, a bruise on her buttocks, and a small red abrasion of the skin just below the vaginal opening. Nurse later testified about Lucy’s account of the assault: She said that they were watching videos on her bed, and she fell asleep. And then she woke up. And she said that she thought it was a sex dream at first, but she realized that the guy was putting something inside of her. And she said that was his fingers, and she started freaking out. And . . . then the guy was saying he was sorry, if they could talk about it. But she ran out of her house without her keys, and barefoot. 20240908-CA 4 2026 UT App 155  State v. Munguia ¶12 While Lucy was at the hospital, a police officer (Officer) took Lucy’s statement, which he later summarized as follows: So she said once they had got done with the bars, they . . . came back to her apartment and they started watching videos. She said at some point, [Friend] left and then it was just her and [Munguia]. And then at some point, she had fallen asleep. And then she was awakened, found that her pants were down by her knees and felt something that—being stuck inside her—in reference to her vaginal area and said that [Munguia] was hovering over her. ¶13 A few days later, Lucy returned to the bar. Noticing that she seemed troubled, a bartender (Sean) asked if she was okay. Sean later testified that Lucy “spilled this story” out: [S]he told me that something had happened. That she had gone home and somebody was at her house with her. They’d crashed there for the night. And they both passed out, watching TV. And when she woke up, this person was over [her], and . . . her clothes were askew. And . . . that person had stuck something in her, and she flipped out and ran out of . . . her house . . . . Anyway, she was frightened and freaked out that there was this thing in her when she woke up. After learning that the person was Munguia, Sean assured Lucy that Munguia would never be allowed back in the bar. ¶14 Another bartender (Monty) arrived for his shift that same night and found Lucy still there. Monty later explained that Lucy told him that “she woke up, her underwear was down, and she could feel that something was inside of her . . . vagina.” He added, “[S]he wasn’t quite sure what it was that was being inserted in 20240908-CA 5 2026 UT App 155  State v. Munguia her. She just knew that that was happening, and panicked, because that’s, you know, a very difficult way to wake up.” ¶15 Munguia never returned to the bar. Investigation and Legal Proceedings ¶16 After some hesitation about whether to go forward with the case against Munguia, Lucy—upon encouragement from her friends—agreed to meet with the detective (Detective) investigating the case. About two months after the incident, Detective conducted a full interview with Lucy. Detective contacted individuals—whose information Lucy had shared—to corroborate her account. ¶17 Munguia was subsequently charged with object rape. He pled not guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The State called twelve witnesses. Eight fact witnesses—Ex-Boyfriend, Brother, Boyfriend, Friend, Officer, Sean, Monty, and Lucy— testified as summarized above. The four other witnesses were Nurse, a DNA analyst, a toxicologist, and Detective. Detective’s testimony included Lucy’s account of the assault, specifically that Lucy said that she “woke up” with “something inside of her getting more aggressive,” which she described as “[f]riction or pressure.” ¶18 As relevant here, Counsel lodged two hearsay objections. First, when Officer testified about what Lucy had told him regarding the events inside her apartment, Counsel objected on hearsay grounds. At a sidebar, the prosecutor argued the testimony was admissible as a prior consistent statement. The court allowed the testimony to proceed. Second, when the prosecutor began eliciting testimony from Monty about what Lucy had told him, Counsel again objected on hearsay grounds. The prosecutor again argued the testimony was admissible as a prior consistent statement. The court allowed the testimony to proceed. 20240908-CA 6 2026 UT App 155  State v. Munguia ¶19 Munguia testified in his own defense. He admitted that he had slept in Lucy’s bed after they had been drinking at her apartment. But he denied that anything untoward happened. He said that when he woke up, he shook Lucy’s shoulder to wake her, which apparently startled her because she “freaked out” and said, “What are you doing?” He claimed that he texted her later that morning because he “startled her in the morning” and “was sorry.” ¶20 Counsel advanced the theory that Lucy had falsely accused Munguia. Indeed, in closing, Counsel emphasized that Lucy had described feeling “foggy” and “hazy” and believed she was dreaming at the time of the incident. He told the jury, “You know the problem with being foggy, you know what the problem with driving in the fog is? You can hit something.” Counsel further suggested that Lucy’s friends had influenced her to report the incident. ¶21 The jury found Munguia guilty of object rape. Munguia was sentenced to five years to life in prison. Munguia timely appealed. ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶22 Munguia claims that Counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to lodge hearsay objections to witnesses’ repetition of Lucy’s out-of-court allegations against Munguia. We evaluate ineffective-assistance claims raised for the first time on appeal for correctness. State v. Reid, 2018 UT App 146, ¶ 17, 427 P.3d 1261. ANALYSIS ¶23 Munguia contends that Counsel provided ineffective assistance because he failed to raise objections to allegedly 20240908-CA 7 2026 UT App 155  State v. Munguia inadmissible hearsay statements repeated by seven prosecution witnesses. 3 Specifically, he asserts that the prosecution had these seven individuals—Ex-Boyfriend, Brother, Boyfriend, Friend, Officer, Sean, and Monty—recount the story that Lucy had told them about the incident. Munguia argues that despite these out- of-court statements being inadmissible hearsay, Counsel permitted each witness to testify about Lucy’s narrative without making sufficient objection. But because the allegedly inadmissible hearsay was merely cumulative of properly admitted evidence, we conclude that Munguia’s claim fails for lack of prejudice. ¶24 To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must demonstrate both (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient,” meaning that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defendant, meaning that the outcome would have been different absent counsel’s deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 694 (1984). “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Id. at 697; see also State v. Mecham, 2000 UT App 247, ¶ 21, 9 P.3d 777 3. Munguia doesn’t bring an ineffective-assistance argument with respect to Nurse’s and Detective’s testimony. However, in one sentence in his brief, Munguia appears to challenge the lack of an objection: “Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to consistently and fully object to the repeated improper hearsay testimony from Lucy’s friends and family, law enforcement, and Nurse.” But in his argument section, he challenges only the seven witnesses identified above as offering inadmissible hearsay and does not challenge the testimony of the Nurse and Detective. The passing inclusion of Nurse and Detective appears to have been an oversight that was subsequently abandoned in briefing. 20240908-CA 8 2026 UT App 155  State v. Munguia (“Because a defendant has the burden of meeting both parts of the Strickland test, it is unnecessary for this court to apply both parts where our inquiry reveals that one of its parts is not satisfied.” (cleaned up)). Thus, “when it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, we will do so without addressing whether counsel’s performance was professionally unreasonable.” Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516, 523 (Utah 1994) (cleaned up). Here, Munguia’s ineffective- assistance claim fails on the prejudice prong, so we accordingly limit our analysis to that component. ¶25 “Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect the substantial rights of a party shall be disregarded.” Utah R. Crim. P. 30(a). And “where testimony is merely cumulative, we are disinclined to find prejudice even when the testimony was improperly admitted.” State v. Jones, 2020 UT App 31, ¶ 35, 462 P.3d 372; see also State v. Thomas, 777 P.2d 445, 449–50 (Utah 1989) (concluding that because an “officer’s [improperly admitted hearsay] testimony was merely cumulative to that already testified to by the victim, the error was harmless”); State v. Jackson, 2010 UT App 328, ¶ 17, 243 P.3d 902 (“[T]he alleged hearsay evidence was cumulative because it reiterated the essence of testimony presented by the victims or other eyewitnesses, even if the exact wording was different.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. DeJesus, 2017 UT 22, 395 P.3d 111. “This is so because cumulative testimony typically doesn’t offer anything new or additional to the evidentiary picture.” State v. Samples, 2022 UT App 125, ¶ 74, 521 P.3d 526 (cleaned up). ¶26 Munguia’s claim of error fails because the multiple witnesses who repeated Lucy’s account did not supply any new inculpatory facts. Lucy’s account was that she and Munguia fell asleep on her bed while watching videos. She awoke to feeling something inside her vagina. She then saw that her shorts had been pulled down and Munguia was crouched over her with his arm between her legs. When she yelled at him, demanding to 20240908-CA 9 2026 UT App 155  State v. Munguia know what he was doing, Munguia repeatedly said he was sorry and begged to talk to her about what had happened. Two other witnesses—whose testimony Munguia does not challenge as inadmissible—corroborated Lucy’s account. Nurse recounted the core of Lucy’s story as relayed to her in the exam. And Detective repeated Lucy’s account to her in her testimony at trial. ¶27 The alleged hearsay testimony from the seven witnesses tracks this same narrative to varying degrees: Lucy said that she and Munguia had fallen asleep, she awoke to find Munguia over her, she felt something inside of her, she yelled at Munguia, and she ran out of the apartment in a distressed emotional state. Thus, the alleged hearsay testimony was cumulative not only of Lucy’s account but also of unchallenged testimony from Nurse and Detective. ¶28 Notably, Counsel’s theory was that Lucy’s allegations against Munguia were falsely made. Under this theory, Lucy was mistaken about the assault not only during her trial testimony, but also in recounting it to the seven witnesses who subsequently recounted her story. The mere repetition of a false allegation does not generate prejudice. If Lucy’s initial accusation of object rape was indeed falsely made, the seven witnesses were simply echoing that mistake. Logically, if the jury found Lucy’s direct testimony unbelievable, it would necessarily reject the testimony of the witnesses who merely repeated her narrative as told to them. Williams v. State, No. 12-12-00413-CR, 2014 WL 356995, at *3 (Tex. App. Jan. 31, 2014) (“[I]f the jury disbelieved the victim’s testimony, then they necessarily would have disbelieved the testimony of the other witnesses, because the complained-of testimony was solely derived from the victim’s statements to them. Stated another way, if the jury disbelieved the victim, it would necessarily disbelieve these witnesses, because they relayed only what the victim told them.”). Because repetition cannot transform a falsehood into truth, any error in admitting these repetitive accounts was harmless; they did not introduce 20240908-CA 10 2026 UT App 155  State v. Munguia new substantive facts but merely reiterated Lucy’s original assertion, the credibility of which the jury was charged to determine. ¶29 Ultimately, this case was a simple matter of credibility between Lucy and Munguia. The jury faced a binary decision: it had to either believe Lucy’s account of object rape or accept Munguia’s claim that Lucy panicked for no apparent reason and falsely accused him. The contested statements from the seven witnesses did not provide any new details, independent knowledge, or clarification of Lucy’s account—an account that was supported by the uncontested testimony of Nurse and Detective. 4 Hearing the same story repeated in a brief, secondhand manner from the seven witnesses did not add any missing facts or change the fundamental choice facing the jury about whom to believe. Given this dynamic and recognizing “our disinclination to find prejudice when improperly admitted testimony is merely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence,” State v. Garcia, 2024 UT App 38, ¶ 39, 546 P.3d 990, Munguia’s claim of error fails. CONCLUSION ¶30 Because the complained-of testimony was merely cumulative of properly admitted testimony, Munguia has not demonstrated the prejudice necessary to support his ineffective- assistance claim. ¶31 Affirmed. 4. Indeed, Counsel was quite adroit in cross-examining each of these seven witnesses to make clear to the jury that they had no firsthand knowledge of the incident. 20240908-CA 11 2026 UT App 155