Utah Supreme Court
Can defendants preserve double jeopardy claims without objecting to mistrial declarations? State v. Cram Explained
Summary
Cram was charged with tax evasion and his trial ended in a hung jury after deliberations failed to produce a verdict. The trial court declared a mistrial after giving defense counsel opportunities to object, which he declined. When the State sought retrial, Cram moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, but the trial court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Cram clarifies the critical importance of timely objections in preserving double jeopardy claims when trial courts declare mistrials. This case demonstrates how the preservation rule applies even to fundamental constitutional protections.
Background and Facts
Cram faced three counts of tax evasion after one count was dismissed pretrial. During jury deliberations, the jury twice reported inability to reach a unanimous verdict. The trial court gave an Allen instruction to encourage further deliberation, but the jury remained deadlocked. When the court declared a mistrial, it specifically asked both counsel if they had anything for the record—defense counsel declined both opportunities. Cram later moved to dismiss the retrial on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the mistrial lacked legal necessity and his consent.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Cram preserved his double jeopardy objection for appellate review. The court also addressed whether defense counsel’s silence constituted waiver of constitutional protections when given explicit opportunities to object.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court distinguished this case from State v. Ambrose, where the court acted so abruptly that counsel had no opportunity to object. Here, the trial court provided two clear opportunities for objection before and after declaring the mistrial. The court held that defense counsel’s statement that he had “nothing for the record” constituted waiver of any objection. The court emphasized that the preservation rule applies to all claims, including constitutional questions, absent exceptional circumstances or plain error.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that criminal defense attorneys must make contemporaneous objections to preserve appellate issues, even for fundamental constitutional protections. The ruling demonstrates that strategic silence during trial proceedings can forfeit important appellate arguments. Practitioners should object to mistrial declarations when they believe double jeopardy protections apply, as post-trial motions will not preserve the issue for appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Cram
Citation
2002 UT 37
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20010046
Date Decided
April 1, 2002
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant must make a timely objection to a mistrial declaration to preserve double jeopardy claims for appeal, and failure to object when given the opportunity constitutes waiver.
Standard of Review
Correctness for the court of appeals’ decision; abuse of discretion for the trial court’s declaration of mistrial
Practice Tip
Always make contemporaneous objections to mistrial declarations when given the opportunity, as silence will waive double jeopardy protections for retrial.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.