When does inadvertent disclosure of outstanding warrants require a mistrial? State v. Warner Explained

In State v. Warner, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when inadvertent disclosure of a defendant’s outstanding warrants during trial requires a mistrial. The case provides important guidance for criminal practitioners on handling prejudicial testimony and preserving appellate issues.

During Warner’s trial for sexual abuse of a child, a police officer testified that he took Warner into custody because dispatch informed him that Warner had “two warrants out for his arrest.” Defense counsel immediately objected and moved for mistrial, arguing the evidence would “completely destroy any credibility” and overwhelmingly prejudice the jury. The trial court denied the motion and instead had the officer explain that the warrants were for “minor traffic matters.”

On appeal, Warner argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying the mistrial motion, claiming the court’s analysis was contradictory since it acknowledged the testimony would have been excluded as “inherently prejudicial” under Rule 403 if presented intentionally, yet found it insufficient to warrant a mistrial when disclosed inadvertently.

The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding no contradiction in the trial court’s reasoning. The court emphasized that it’s the danger of unfair prejudice that determines admissibility under Rule 403, not merely the existence of prejudice. The court found that testimony about outstanding warrants for minor traffic matters did not impair Warner’s credibility or influence the jury to the extent that he could not receive a fair trial.

Importantly, the court noted that Warner waived his right to complain about the lack of a curative instruction because defense counsel failed to request one after the court offered to “make a curative instruction or move on.” This highlights the critical importance of making specific requests for jury instructions on the record to preserve appellate issues.