Utah Court of Appeals
Can a trial court deny a mistrial motion after discovery violations if alternative remedies are provided? State v. Murdock Explained
Summary
Defendant Murdock was convicted of forcible sodomy and challenged his conviction based on the State’s discovery violation regarding DNA testing. The prosecutor initially informed defendant that DNA testing was inconclusive but later changed position during trial, stating the DNA was never tested because the sample was insufficient.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about discovery violations and remedial measures in State v. Murdock, affirming a trial court’s decision to deny a motion for mistrial when adequate alternative remedies were already in place.
In this criminal case, the prosecution initially told the defense that DNA testing had been performed but was inconclusive. However, during trial, the prosecutor changed course and stated that the DNA sample had never been tested because it was insufficient. This inconsistency constituted a discovery violation under Rule 16 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rather than granting a mistrial, the trial court provided an alternative remedy by excluding certain evidence and instructing the jury that the DNA sample was not tested because it was believed insufficient. This remedy actually benefited the defendant by preventing the State from introducing evidence that could have been interpreted negatively against him.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals applied the abuse of discretion standard and found no error. The court emphasized that trial courts have “ample power to obviate any prejudice resulting from a breach of the criminal discovery rules” and are not required to grant the most severe remedy when lesser alternatives adequately address the violation.
Importantly, the court noted that Murdock never requested a continuance for additional discovery, which could have provided him time to investigate the DNA testing status. This failure to request alternative relief weakened his appellate argument that the trial court abused its discretion.
For practitioners, this case demonstrates that trial courts have broad discretion in fashioning discovery violation remedies. When seeking relief for discovery violations, attorneys should request multiple forms of relief, including continuances, to preserve all appellate arguments and ensure adequate protection of their clients’ rights.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Murdock
Citation
2011 UT App 71
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20090283-CA
Date Decided
March 10, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for mistrial when it has already provided an adequate alternative remedy for discovery violations through exclusion of prejudicial evidence.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for trial court’s denial of motion for mistrial and discovery remedies
Practice Tip
When discovery violations occur, specifically request a continuance in addition to other remedies to preserve appellate arguments, as failing to request a continuance may waive the claim on appeal.
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.