State v. Streeper

2022 UT App 147
THE UTAH C OURT OF APPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH ,
Appellee,
v.
JACOB R ICH S TREEPER ,
Appellant.
Opinion
No. 20180337-CA
Filed December 22, 2022
Second District Court, Ogden Department
The Honorable Mark R. DeCaria
The Honorable Reuben J. Renstrom
No. 161901835
Emily Adams, Freyja Johnson, and Cherise M.
Bacalski, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and Jonathan S. Bauer,
Attorneys for Appellee
JUDGE D AVID N. M ORTENSEN authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES GREGORY K. O RME and R YAN M. HARRIS concurred.
MORTENSEN, Judge:
¶1 	Jacob Rich Streeper confessed to family members and the
police to variously drugging, sexually assaulting, sodomizing,
and raping his three young daughters, half-sister, and niece. At
trial, he stuck to much of what he had confessed and admitted
before the jury that he had drugged and molested several young
girls, including his own daughters. Yet he claimed that the parts
of his previous confessions that related to more egregious sex acts,
including rape and sodomy, were false. The jury convicted
Streeper on all counts. He now claims that his trial counsel was
ineffective for not retaining an expert on false confessions. We
affirm.

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	2 	2022 UT App 147
BACKGROUND1
¶2 	In August 2016, Streeper’s wife (Wife)—who was six
months 	pregnant 	at 	the 	time—confronted 	him 	about 	child
pornography she found on his iPod.2 In response, Streeper
“grabbed [her] and pushed [her] down on the couch,” “sat on
[her] lap,” and twisted her “arm as hard as he could to try to get
[the iPod] out of [her] hand.” As Streeper pressed into her
stomach, Wife screamed, awakening the two oldest of the couple’s
three minor daughters, who came into the room. Streeper deleted
the child pornography from the retrieved iPod. Wife called the
police, 	her 	family, 	and 	Streeper’s 	parents. 	She 	then 	kicked
Streeper out of the house.
The First Case: Streeper Sexually Abuses His Niece and Half-sister
¶3 	Shortly 	thereafter—apparently 	in 	response 	to 	the
discovery of child pornography on the iPod—Streeper’s niece
(Niece), then fifteen years old, revealed that Streeper had touched
her vagina when she was nine or ten during a sleepover.3 In a
subsequent interview with police officers, Streeper admitted to
sexually abusing Niece. During the same interview, Streeper also
admitted that he “inappropriately kissed” his oldest daughter
1. “On appeal, we review the record facts in a light most favorable
to the jury’s verdict and recite the facts accordingly.” State v.
Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 2, 10 P.3d 346 (cleaned up). Because we rest
our analysis on a determination of prejudice, it is necessary to
supply a significant amount of admittedly troubling detail.
2. Wife looked for pornography because “it had been a problem
in the past.” Also, the couple’s middle daughter had shown Wife
pornography she had found on Streeper’s iPod.
3. This incident occurred around March 2015, when Streeper was
thirty-four years old.

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	3 	2022 UT App 147
(Daughter 1), who was twelve years old, on the shoulder on a
different occasion. Streeper further admitted in this interview that
he had digitally penetrated the vagina of his half-sister (Half-
sister) when she was eight or nine and he was eighteen.
¶4 	The State charged Streeper with two counts of aggravated
sexual abuse of a child (for the acts he admitted to committing on
Niece and Half-sister) and two counts of domestic violence
related to his assault on Wife.
The Second Case: Streeper Sexually Abuses His Three Daughters
¶5 	Around this same time, Streeper’s ten-year-old middle
daughter (Daughter 2) revealed that Streeper “had hurt her
vagina” 	and 	that 	she 	had 	found 	condom 	wrappers 	in 	her
bedroom. Wife found one condom wrapper on the floor next to
where 	Streeper 	would 	sometimes 	sleep 	when 	he 	stayed 	in
Daughter 2’s room. Daughter 2 also reported that Streeper gave
her medication to help her sleep and that “she woke up on one
occasion with [Streeper] on top of her hurting her vagina.”
¶6 	Police officers interviewed Daughter 2 and Daughter 1 at
the Children’s Justice Center. Daughter 2 told police that Streeper
had “taught her how to french kiss using her tongue with him,”
that Streeper touched her vagina, and that when she was younger,
he would “rub white cream on her vagina . . . for a long time.” She
also revealed that Streeper would give her “white pills to help her
sleep” and that she would have stomachaches, vaginal pain,
rashes, and headaches after taking these pills. She recalled having
difficulty waking up after taking the pills. She “remembered
feeling like somebody would grab her hips and pull her down on
the bed at night.” Daughter 2 mentioned that Streeper would
“watch her while she was taking baths, and it made her feel very
uncomfortable.” 	She 	shared 	one 	incident 	in 	which 	she
“accidentally brushed against” Streeper’s private parts when she
was getting out of the bathtub. Streeper responded by saying,
“You touched my private parts. Now I get to touch yours,” and

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	4 	2022 UT App 147
chasing her until he was able to touch her vaginal area. Daughter
2 further disclosed that she had seen Streeper take his youngest
daughter 	(Daughter 	3), 	who 	was 	three 	years 	old, 	into 	the
bathroom and lock the door and that she could hear Daughter 3
crying.
¶7 	Daughter 1 revealed to officers that she had “received
small white pills” from Streeper “to help her sleep at night.” She
remembered waking up with a sore vagina, a stomachache, and a
rash on her inner thighs, as well as experiencing painful urination.
She recalled that as early as third grade, Streeper would “rub . . .
cream on the inside and outside of her vagina” in a way that she
described as “being very aggressive” and “for a long time.” She
stated that while Streeper was kissing her shoulder, “he had put
his leg around her.”
Streeper’s Confessions
¶8 	Around 	the 	same 	time 	that 	the 	police 	interviewed
Daughter 	2 	and 	Daughter 	1, 	Streeper 	told 	his 	stepfather
(Stepfather) that he had inappropriately touched Niece, Half-
sister, and Daughter 2. Stepfather told Streeper that he needed to
tell the police about the abuse. But as Stepfather prepared to take
him to the police station to be interviewed, Streeper began acting
“delirious” and revealed that he had taken fifty pills of Tramadol4
4. “Tramadol is a specific type of narcotic medicine called an
opioid that is approved to treat moderate to moderately severe
pain 	in 	adults.” 	Tramadol 	Information, 	U.S. 	Food 	& 	Drug
Administration, 	https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-
safety-information-patients-and-providers/tramadol-information
[https://perma.cc/XCX3-RDY6]. Among the more common side
effects of Tramadol are feeling sad, empty, or discouraged; loss of
interest or pleasure; sleepiness or unusual drowsiness; stomach
pain; 	weakness, 	tiredness, 	and 	drowsiness; 	and 	trouble
(continued…)

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	5 	2022 UT App 147
and other medicine in an attempt to kill himself. Stepfather took
Streeper to the hospital, where he was admitted and treated.
¶9 	Two days later, police officers interviewed Streeper at the
hospital. Before speaking to him, the officers checked with the
nurse and were informed that “he hadn’t received any form of
narcotics or any other medications at that time,” that he was about
to be medically released, and that it was “fine to speak” with him.
One officer described Streeper as “calm,” “coherent,” and “lucid”
during the interview. In addition to his previous admissions of
abusing Niece and Half-sister, this time Streeper admitted to
giving 	Daughter 	2 	and 	Daughter 	1 	Tramadol 	and 	digitally
penetrating their vaginas on multiple occasions.
¶10 	Later that day, Wife and Stepfather visited Streeper in the
hospital. Streeper admitted to Wife that he had sexually abused
all three of his daughters. Specifically, Streeper told her that he
had performed oral sex on each child. Streeper also admitted that
he digitally penetrated their vaginas and that he would put a
condom on and rub his penis against their vaginas until he
ejaculated. Streeper also admitted to giving Daughter 2 and
Daughter 1 Tramadol specifically so that he could abuse them
while they were sleeping.
¶11 	While Streeper was making these admissions to Wife,
Stepfather had been sitting outside the hospital room. Wife came
out of the room and said to Stepfather, “He has confessed
everything. I want you to hear it.” Stepfather testified that he went
in and talked to Streeper, whereupon Streeper “told [him] that he
had molested every one of [his] children,” including performing
oral sex on each of them, rubbing his penis against their vaginas,
and digitally penetrating Daughter 1’s and Daughter 2’s vaginas.
concentrating. 	See 	Tramadol 	(Oral 	Route), 	Mayo 	Clinic,
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/tramadol-oral-
route/side-effects/drg-20068050 [https://perma.cc/CZ4N-5BV9].

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	6 	2022 UT App 147
¶12 	Wife and Stepfather reported these additional revelations
to the police, and the next day the police officers returned to the
hospital 	to 	conduct 	an 	additional 	interview. 	During 	this
interview, 	Streeper 	admitted 	to 	digitally 	penetrating 	each
daughter, performing oral sex on each daughter, and “wearing a
condom and having his penis penetrate the labia of all three of his
daughters.” During this interview, Streeper also admitted that,
years ago, he had performed oral sex on Half-sister.
¶13 	Based on these new admissions, the State charged Streeper
in a second case with three counts of rape of a child, three counts
of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, three counts of sodomy
upon a child, and two counts of surreptitious administration of a
controlled substance.
The Trial
¶14 	The two cases were tried together before a jury. At trial,
Niece testified that Streeper had rubbed her vagina “skin to skin”
in the middle of the night when she was nine or ten. Half-sister
testified that Streeper digitally penetrated her vagina when she
was almost nine years old.
¶15 	Daughter 2 testified that Streeper would “watch” her and
look at her “privates” when she was taking a bath and kissed her
on the mouth and tongue. She also revealed that Streeper rubbed
cream—which he referred to as “genie cream”—on her and
Daughter 1’s vaginas, which he called “genie[s].” She further
testified that Streeper gave her pills to help her sleep. After taking
these pills, she reported waking with a stomachache, that her
“vagina was red sometimes,” and that “it burned to pee.”
Daughter 2 also testified that the pills “always” made her feel like
she “was being sunken into the bed, but [she] couldn’t ever wake
up.” One time when she woke from one of these stupors, she saw
Streeper at the foot of her bed with a “worried and shocked” look
on his face. Daughter 2 stated that she felt like she was “being
pulled down [her] bed sometimes” when she was asleep. She also

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	7 	2022 UT App 147
testified that she found multiple condom wrappers in her room.
Regarding Daughter 3, Daughter 2 said Streeper would “bounce
his penis in her face” after getting out of the shower and that he
would take Daughter 3 into the bathroom and lock the door,
where she could be heard crying.
¶16 	Daughter 1 testified that she had awakened to Streeper
kissing her arm while having his leg wrapped around her. She
also recalled that when she was in third grade, she would
sometimes wake up with a “really red” vagina and a rash
“between [her] legs” and that on those occasions it was painful to
urinate. She remembered once waking up without her pajama
bottoms on and her vagina hurting. She also said Streeper would
rub cream “very hard” on her when she would report pain in her
vaginal area and that he did it “a lot.” Like her sister, Daughter 1
reported that Streeper would give her white pills to help her sleep.
She also described Streeper showing his penis to Daughter 3.
¶17 	Daughter 3, who was four years old at the time of trial,
testified that Streeper had “hurt [her] gina” and had “licked [her]
gina, too.”
¶18 	Wife testified that Streeper, while in the hospital, admitted
to her that he had committed the following acts: that he had given
Tramadol to Daughter 1 and Daughter 2 so that he could
“sexually abuse them”; that he had performed oral sex on all three
daughters; that he had digitally penetrated each daughter’s
vagina; and that, while he and the daughters were nude from the
waist down, “he would get on top of the girls, . . . would rub his
penis through their vaginas skin to skin, and that he would wear
a condom and do this until he orgasmed.” Wife described
Streeper’s demeanor while he was making these admissions as
“calm” and “clear.” She noted that Streeper “went into a lot of
detail” in recounting the abuse, sharing information that she
“didn’t feel [she] needed to know”—“like he was enjoying
telling” her about what he had done to his daughters.

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	8 	2022 UT App 147
¶19 	In 	addition 	to 	detailing 	Streeper’s 	admissions, 	Wife
testified about her own observations of her daughters while
Streeper lived with the family. She said that she “saw a pattern
where the kids . . . always had red vaginas, complaining that they
were sore, [and had] yeast infections”; that Daughter 3 would “cry
and 	become 	hysterical” 	whenever 	she 	was 	left 	alone 	with
Streeper; and that after Streeper had departed, she found a
condom wrapper on the floor of Daughter 2’s room in the area
where Streeper would sleep when he spent the night there and
that Daughter 2 found a condom wrapper in the top of her closet.
¶20 	Stepfather 	also 	testified 	about 	Streeper’s 	separate
admissions to him that he had sexually abused Niece and Half-
sister. Stepfather further revealed that Streeper admitted to
performing oral sex on each of his daughters and “that he had
been doing it for quite a while.” Regarding Daughter 1 and
Daughter 	2, 	he 	testified 	that 	Streeper 	admitted 	to 	digitally
penetrating and putting his condomed penis next to their vaginas.
¶21 	A nurse practitioner (Nurse) testified about the medical
exams she conducted on the three daughters. She testified that
“sex abuse is considered the most insidious kind of abuse of
children [because] we can’t really see it most of the time, and so
what we see are children behaving in unusual ways in order to
demonstrate their stress and anxiety.” She said Daughter 1’s
complaints of a rash between her legs and painful urination in the
morning were consistent with “something happen[ing] in the
night.” Nurse also stated that Daughter 1’s abdominal pain,
headaches, 	and 	problems 	sleeping 	were 	all 	consistent 	with
possible abuse. Nurse opined that the lessened severity of these
issues after Streeper’s departure from the family home suggested
“that the source of the fear and anxiety [was] gone.” Nurse
testified that Daughter 2 reported that Streeper had touched her
vagina and complained of pain during urination. Nurse stated
that Daughter 3 revealed that Streeper had “hurt [her] gina” with
his “[h]and.”

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	9 	2022 UT App 147
¶22 	Nurse stated that it is “not uncommon, especially in
prepubertal girls” who are abused by family members, to not find
physical indications of sexual abuse “because the goal [of the
abuser] is to . . . have sexual gratification without harming the
child.” 	Nurse 	noted 	that 	“intralabial 	intercourse, 	[which] 	is
rubbing between the labia, . . . creates friction, which causes heat
[and] . . . can cause injury to those tender tissues” that would
typically heal “within a day or two.” Nurse explained that this
type of sexual abuse “can cause discomfort, especially during the
time 	right 	after 	it’s 	happening,” 	including 	“burning 	on
urination.”
¶23 	The 	two 	police 	investigators 	testified 	about 	their
interviews during which Streeper admitted to sexually abusing
his daughters by touching their vaginas, performing oral sex on
each daughter, and rubbing his penis against their vaginas. The
officers also testified about Streeper’s admissions of sexual abuse
of Niece and Half-sister. Of note, one officer testified that Streeper
“admitted to performing oral sex on [Half-sister] when she was
about 4 or 5-years old.”
¶24 	Streeper testified in his own defense. During his trial
testimony, he admitted to rubbing Niece’s vagina for his sexual
gratification, digitally penetrating Half-sister’s vagina, putting his
“mouth on” Half-sister’s vagina when she was four years old,
kissing Daughter 1 “inappropriately” on her shoulder, digitally
penetrating 	Daughter 	2’s 	vagina, 	and 	giving 	his 	daughters
Tramadol.
¶25 	As 	to 	all 	the 	other 	acts 	of 	sexual 	abuse, 	Streeper
acknowledged that he had made the confessions as recounted by
the 	officers, 	Wife, 	and 	Stepfather, 	but 	he 	claimed 	that 	his
confessions to those other acts had been false. Specifically, he
denied performing oral sex on his daughters or putting his penis
in their labial areas. He denied digitally penetrating Daughter 1’s
vagina and having any sexual contact whatsoever with Daughter

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	10 	2022 UT App 147
3. Streeper asserted that he had admitted to these other acts of
abuse because he “felt that there was nothing else [he] could do
besides just give them all these confessions” and that he was
“being ganged up on by them.” Streeper also stated that the drugs
he took in his attempted suicide affected him when he made the
confessions.
¶26 	After deliberation, the jury found Streeper guilty on all
counts.
Rule 23B Remand Findings
¶27 	Claiming on appeal that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel at trial, Streeper filed a motion under rule 23B of the
Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure seeking remand to develop
evidence on whether his trial counsel (Counsel) was ineffective
for not retaining an expert witness on false confessions. This court
remanded the matter “for the limited purpose of supplementing
the record with evidence and entering findings of fact relevant to
Streeper’s claim[] that [Counsel] was ineffective . . . in not
presenting 	at 	trial 	expert testimony 	on 	the 	subject 	of 	false
confessions.”
¶28 	At the rule 23B evidentiary hearing, the district court heard
testimony from Counsel and Streeper, as well as from a false
confession expert (Expert).
¶29 	Regarding 	Expert’s 	testimony, 	the 	court 	made 	the
following findings of fact:
• 	Expert asserted that “false confessions do occur, but it is
not clear how often they occur.”
• 	Expert 	explained 	that 	the 	“Reid 	method” 	of 	police
interrogation, 	commonly 	used 	in 	the 	United 	States,
functions by “(1) establishing a sense of hopelessness in the
individual being interrogated; (2) causing the individual to
feel that confessing is their best option by offering excuses

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	11 	2022 UT App 147
for their conduct and raising the costs of not confessing;
and 	(3) 	obtaining 	a 	detailed 	confession 	from 	the
individual.” The goal of police interrogation using this
method “is to convince people to confess when they would
not otherwise do so using the following tactics: convincing
them that the officers already know the truth and have
proof of their guilt; encouraging them to tell their side of
the story; suggesting that if they confess they may get in
less trouble, get help, or go home; and reminding them that
taking responsibility for their actions will be looked upon
favorably by others.”
• 	Expert testified that the “Reid method of interrogation has
been 	criticized 	by 	scholars 	and 	disavowed 	by
organizations, 	such 	as 	the 	Federal 	Bureau 	of
Investigation.”
• 	Expert “stated that suspects accused of sexual abuse are
more vulnerable to law enforcement’s efforts to establish a
feeling of hopelessness because suspects believe there is no
evidence to prove they did not commit the crime, and/or it
is their word against the victim’s word.”
• 	Expert testified “that individuals falsely confess when
interrogated 	by 	law enforcement 	for 	various reasons,
including: 	(1) 	believing 	that 	if 	they 	confess, 	the
interrogation 	would 	end 	and 	they 	could 	leave;
(2) believing 	the 	interrogator’s 	minimization 	of 	their
alleged actions, and that if they confess they would not get
in trouble, or get in less trouble than if they did not confess;
(3) wanting to avoid further conflict; (4) concentrating on
escaping 	the 	present 	situation 	without 	considering
potential future consequences; (5) [being] overwhelmed
with stress; and (6) [believing] that even if they falsely
confess, once the investigation is concluded, they will be
exonerated based on the evidence.”
• 	Expert “testified that the same pressures to falsely confess
during interrogations by law enforcement can exist, and be
even more potent, in interrogations by family members

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	12 	2022 UT App 147
because family members can make threats and promises
based 	on 	familial 	relationships 	that 	law 	enforcement
officers cannot. However, she did not refer or cite to any
research that supports this conclusion.”
• 	Expert explained that “[r]esearch has shown that jurors
often assume that a confession indicates a defendant is
guilty and do not understand that even a ‘normal’ innocent
person may falsely confess given the right conditions.”
And Expert testified that “[s]tudies suggest that when
attempting to detect if a confession is false, people are
wrong approximately 50% of the time.”
• 	Expert reviewed the transcripts, listened to the audio
recordings of the two police interviews, and read the
statements made by Streeper’s family members. Expert
concluded that the officers used the Reid method.
• 	Expert 	“testified 	that 	the 	officers 	who 	interviewed
[Streeper] established an overall sense of hopelessness
during the interviews . . . by reminding [Streeper] that he
had already confessed to his family, by accusing him of not
telling the whole story, and by stating that they knew what
happened and just wanted him to confirm what they
already knew.”
• 	Expert “believed that the officers convinced [Streeper] that
confessing 	was 	his 	best 	option 	by 	suggesting 	that
[Streeper] did not have bad intentions, his conduct was
impacted by his addiction, he had lessened the negative
impact on the children by engaging in inappropriate
conduct while they were sleeping, he should take the
opportunity to tell his side of the story, he would be worse
off 	if 	he 	did 	not 	confess, 	his 	statements 	would 	be
confidential, and confessing would help heal his family.”
• 	Expert believed that Streeper “exhibited some traits of
individuals 	who 	may 	be 	prone 	to 	false 	confessions
including being stressed, depressed, suicidal, and addicted
to opioids.”

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	13 	2022 UT App 147
• 	While Expert “would not testify as to whether any of
[Streeper’s] 	statements 	were 	actually 	false,” 	she
“concluded that less weight should be given to [Streeper’s]
confessions to both his family and the police because of
both his physical and mental condition and the tactics used
by his family and the police to get him to confess.”
¶30 	The court made several factual findings about Counsel’s
decision not to hire a false confession expert: (1) Counsel had
practiced law for nearly forty-three years and served as a criminal
defense attorney in approximately 200 trials; (2) Counsel “stated
that when he was assigned as [Streeper’s] public defender,
[Streeper] told him he had confessed to the police because he was
under the influence of the drugs he took to overdose”; (3) Counsel
“determined that the officers did not engage in any conduct
during the interviews that would lead him to believe [Streeper]
had been tricked or coerced into making the confessions”; and
(4) Counsel “listened to the police interviews with [Streeper],
reviewed [Streeper’s] medical records from the hospital, and
conducted research to determine if he should hire an expert to
testify that [Streeper] was under the influence of drugs when he
confessed, but determined that the evidence did not indicate
[Streeper] was under the influence of any drugs that could have
caused him to make a false confession.”
¶31 	The court entered the following factual findings regarding
Streeper’s testimony on remand: (1) Streeper said Wife was “very
harsh” when asking him what he had done to their daughters,
causing him to make “things up to give her the answers he
thought she was looking for and to stop the questioning”;
(2) Streeper asserted that he confessed to Stepfather because
Stepfather “pressured him with religion”; (3) Streeper “said that
he confessed to the police because they were manipulative and
kept pushing and prying and he was tired of it”; (4) Streeper “did
not state that he informed [Counsel] that he falsely confessed” in
response to the allegedly manipulative interrogation techniques;

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	14 	2022 UT App 147
and (5) Streeper “testified that he believed the police investigation
and his children would exonerate him from the things he was
making up.”
¶32 	Streeper now appeals most of the convictions related to his
three daughters.5
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶33 	The sole issue on appeal is whether Streeper received
ineffective assistance when Counsel failed to consult an expert
witness 	on 	false 	confessions. 	“In 	ruling 	on 	an 	ineffective
assistance of counsel claim following a rule 23B hearing, we defer
to the trial court’s findings of fact.” State v. Ayala, 2022 UT App 1,
¶ 16, 504 P.3d 755 (cleaned up). But the ultimate question of
whether Counsel rendered ineffective assistance is before us for
the first time, and it is a question we consider as a matter of law.
See State v. Guerro, 2021 UT App 136, ¶ 25, 502 P.3d 338 (“When a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time
on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must
decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective
assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” (cleaned up)).
ANALYSIS
¶34 	To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
Streeper “must demonstrate that (1) his counsel’s performance
5. Streeper challenges his convictions for rape of Daughter 1,
Daughter 2, and Daughter 3; aggravated sexual abuse of Daughter
1 and Daughter 3; and sodomy on Daughter 1, Daughter 2, and
Daughter 3. He does not challenge his convictions for aggravated
sexual abuse of Niece, Half-sister, and Daughter 2; assault on
Wife; domestic violence in the presence of a child; or surreptitious
administration of a controlled substance.

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	15 	2022 UT App 147
was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the
defense.” See State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 24, 469 P.3d 871 (cleaned
up); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984).
“Because failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we are free to address
[Streeper’s] claims under either prong.” See Honie v. State, 2014 UT
19, ¶ 31, 342 P.3d 182.
¶35 	“Here, because we conclude that [Streeper’s] defense was
not prejudiced by Counsel’s alleged[ly] deficient performance, we
limit our analysis to the second prong.” See State v. Ayala, 2022 UT
App 1, ¶ 22, 504 P.3d 755. “Counsel’s performance is prejudicial
if the defendant can demonstrate that there is a reasonable
probability that the outcome of his or her case would have been
different absent counsel’s error. Accordingly, the defendant must
do more than simply show that the errors had some conceivable
effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Wright, 2021 UT
App 7, ¶ 54, 481 P.3d 479 (cleaned up). In other words, “the proof
that [Counsel’s] acts or omissions prejudiced [Streeper] must be a
demonstrable reality and not a speculative matter.” See State v.
Nelson, 2015 UT 62, ¶ 10, 355 P.3d 1031 (cleaned up).
¶36 	For the following reasons, we conclude that—on the facts
presented here—Streeper was not prejudiced by the lack of expert
testimony on false confessions.
¶37 	First, the idea that Streeper was pressured to confess falsely
was established independently of Expert’s proffered testimony.
Streeper’s own 	testimony 	put 	before the jury 	not only the
assertion that his confessions were false but the putative reason
for his false confessions. The jury heard Streeper assert that he
falsely confessed because he felt like he was being “ganged up on”
and that he just acquiesced to get the questioning to stop. Even
without Expert’s testimony, the jury understood that Streeper—

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	16 	2022 UT App 147
based on his own sworn testimony—may have had reasons for
confessing to abuse that he did not commit.
¶38 	Second, Expert was able to review only the transcripts of
Streeper’s confessions to the officers. There were no transcripts of
his confessions to Wife and Stepfather because they were relayed
entirely by the testimony of Wife and Stepfather. Consequently,
Expert 	had 	no 	basis—other 	than 	the 	rather 	unremarkable
observation that family members can put pressure on a person—
to 	assert 	that 	Wife 	and 	Stepfather 	employed 	coercive
interrogation techniques to force multiple false confessions out of
Streeper. Even though Expert’s testimony might have provided
additional 	nuance 	as 	to 	why 	Streeper 	would 	have 	falsely
confessed to the police officers, her testimony would have done
little to explain—beyond what the jury already knew—why he
purportedly 	falsely 	confessed 	to 	Wife 	and 	Stepfather. 	Any
assertion by Expert that familial pressure may exist would come
as a revelation to no one. The jury—by virtue of the lived
experience of its members—was well aware that kin and clan
might sometimes employ moral force in an effort to make one say
what one does not mean, hoping to repair tattered relationships.
Expert’s testimony would have added nothing to the jury’s
awareness of this basic aspect of familial dynamics.
¶39 	Third, the consistent, corroborative, and discrete nature of
Streeper’s repeated confessions belies the notion that he may have
been 	prejudiced 	by 	the 	lack 	of 	expert 	testimony 	on 	false
confessions. The jury heard Wife and Stepfather testify that
Streeper 	had 	confessed 	to 	oral 	sodomy, 	digital 	vaginal
penetration, and rubbing his penis against the vaginas of his three
daughters. As we have explained, Expert’s testimony would have
provided 	no 	foundation 	for 	the 	jury—apart 	from 	what 	its
members already knew—to conclude that these confessions to
family members were false. The day after he had made these
admissions to his family, he confessed substantially the same to
the 	officers. 	Given 	the 	consistency 	of 	Streeper’s 	multiple

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	17 	2022 UT App 147
confessions, we find it unlikely that Expert’s testimony would
have swayed the jury to believe Streeper’s assertion that select
aspects of his confessions were false.
¶40 	Fourth, the consistency of Streeper’s confessions with the
overall evidentiary landscape cuts against prejudice. Wife not
only testified about the abuse Streeper confessed to having
committed, but she also shared testimony about the various
physical symptoms (namely, stomachaches, headaches, rashes,
and vaginal infections) that her daughters experienced when
Streeper lived in the family home and that condom wrappers
were found in Daughter 2’s room. In this same vein, the jury heard
the testimony of the three daughters. Each testified about the
sexual abuse Streeper had inflicted on them—all apart from, but
corroborative of, Streeper’s confessions. While the two older
daughters could not recall the specifics of much of the abuse
because Streeper had drugged them—a misdeed he admitted to
at trial and does not now dispute—they did testify in detail about
the physical ailments (namely, painful urination, irritated vaginal
areas, and frequent headaches) they suffered because of the abuse.
And 	the 	daughters 	testified 	to 	other 	highly 	suspicious
circumstances 	and 	behavior 	that 	pointed 	toward 	Streeper
sexually abusing them. He rubbed cream on their vaginal areas,
which Daughter 1 described as Streeper doing in a “very hard”
manner. Daughter 1 recalled waking up without her pajama
bottoms on and having a sore vagina; she also recounted how she
once awakened to Streeper kissing her shoulder and having his
leg wrapped around her. Daughter 2 testified about Streeper
twice kissing her on her tongue. And she also said that she
recalled pressure pushing her into the bed and feeling like she was
being “pulled down” in her bed at times. She described once
awakening and seeing Streeper at the foot of her bed with a
“worried and shocked” look on his face. Daughter 2 also revealed
that she found a condom wrapper in her closet while cleaning her
room 	after 	Streeper 	had 	departed 	the 	family 	home. 	Even

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	18 	2022 UT App 147
Streeper’s youngest daughter testified that Streeper had “licked”
her vagina and “hurt” it with his hand.
¶41 	This evidence of the abuse was entirely distinct from—but
nevertheless corroborative of—the details Streeper shared in his
confessions. From this perspective, Streeper was not prejudiced
by the lack of Expert’s testimony. Even with Expert’s testimony,
the jury would have been unlikely to believe that Streeper falsely
confessed, because the details revealed in his allegedly false
confessions matched the other evidence (i.e., his daughters’
testimonies and Wife’s non-confession testimony) too closely. The
other evidence was simply too corroborative of Streeper’s rape
and sodomy confessions for a rational jury to believe Streeper’s
assertion that his confessions on those points were false. In other
words, Streeper’s confessions provided a lockstep explanation of
the experiences of the three girls and their physical ailments such
that finding Streeper had spoken truthfully in making all his
confessions 	was 	the 	overwhelmingly 	likely 	conclusion. 	The
testimony of Expert would have done little to change this
dynamic.
¶42 	Fifth, Streeper’s own testimony negates his assertion of
prejudice by making it unlikely that the jury would believe that
he committed some of the acts but not others. The jury heard
Streeper testify that he had sexually abused Half-sister and Niece
by touching their vaginas when they were about the same age as
his daughters. It heard Streeper admit to sodomizing Half-sister
by putting his “mouth on” her vagina when she was only four
years old. He also testified that he had digitally penetrated
Daughter 2 and “inappropriately” kissed Daughter 1 on the
shoulder. Additionally, he told the jury that he had given his
daughters 	Tramadol. 	Streeper 	never 	recanted 	any 	of 	these
admissions 	or 	asserted 	that 	they 	were 	false. 	Against 	this
backdrop, Streeper asked the jury to believe that he truthfully
confessed to sodomizing, digitally penetrating, and drugging
some of his victims but to dismiss as false his confessions to doing

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	19 	2022 UT App 147
additional acts to these and other victims. In other words, he was
trying to convince the jury to believe his selective identification of
true and false confessions. To be blunt, Streeper’s parsing of
reality simply strains credibility to such an extent that we do not
believe it at all likely that Expert’s testimony, no matter how
eloquent, would have done anything to sway the jury to believe
Streeper’s explanation of his allegedly false confessions. His trial
version of carved-out false confessions was simply too much to
believe. Given this reality, we are unconvinced that the absence of
Expert’s testimony harmed Streeper in any way. The outcome of
this trial had little to do with the lack of expert testimony and a
lot 	more 	to 	do 	with 	Streeper’s 	own 	actions—especially 	his
admissions, which were notably corroborated and consistent with
the totality of the evidence presented at trial.
¶43 	Sixth, even if Expert’s testimony had been presented to the
jury, the limited nature of her conclusions would have been of
little help to Streeper. Expert did not testify that Streeper’s
confessions “were actually false” but that “less weight should be
given” 	to 	his confessions because 	of 	Streeper’s mental 	and
physical state and the tactics employed by his family and police
“to get him to confess.” And given all the corroborative evidence
supporting the truth of Streeper’s confessions, we do not think the
jury would have been likely to give Streeper’s confessions less
weight. But even if they did, we think it likely that they would
have reached the same result. Giving his confessions less weight
does 	not 	mean 	ignoring 	them 	completely, 	and 	given 	the
corroborative nature of the evidence, the jury was still likely to
conclude that Streeper did the things he denied.
¶44 	In sum, the jury was well aware of Streeper’s assertion that
some of his confessions were false. It also heard abundant
testimony from Streeper’s victims, from Wife, from Stepfather,
from 	police 	officers, 	and 	from 	Streeper 	himself. 	And 	that
testimony set forth circumstances highly suggestive of repeated
sexual abuse of his daughters, including rape and sodomy. Given

State v. Streeper
20180337-CA 	20 	2022 UT App 147
these considerations, Expert’s testimony would not have likely
swayed the jury to conclude that Streeper’s confession to those
more serious acts was false. See generally State v. Prater, 2017 UT
13, ¶ 41 n.5, 392 P.3d 398 (stating that a jury is “well positioned to
consider” a witness’s “explanation” for “shifting” stories and
conclude which version of events to believe). Thus, while Counsel
could have called an expert, any effect of not doing so, in this
particular case, was “not so profound as to undermine our
confidence in the proceeding’s outcome.” See State v. Ayala, 2022
UT App 1, ¶ 24, 504 P.3d 755 (cleaned up).
CONCLUSION
¶45 	Having determined that Streeper was not prejudiced by
the absence of expert testimony on false confessions, we conclude
that his claim of ineffective assistance is unavailing.
¶46 	Affirmed.