Can curative jury instructions remedy errors without requiring a mistrial? State v. Nelson Explained

In State v. Nelson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court must grant a mistrial when jurors read erroneous language in printed jury instructions, even after the court provides a curative instruction.

During Nelson’s trial for distributing a controlled substance, the court inadvertently included language in jury instruction No. 5 referencing that the defendant had been “having been previously convicted under Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(1)(a).” When reading the instructions aloud, the trial court caught this error and told the jury to “strike the offending language” and “cross that out.” The court then restated the instruction without the problematic language.

Nelson moved for mistrial, arguing that despite the curative instruction, jury members had still read the reference to prior convictions in their printed copies. The trial court denied the motion and provided an additional curative instruction explaining that the offending language was inadvertently included from another instruction template and should be disregarded as it was not supported by evidence.

The Court of Appeals applied the abuse of discretion standard, requiring that Nelson show the trial court’s decision was “plainly wrong” such that he could not have received a fair trial. The court found no abuse of discretion for several reasons: First, curative instructions are a necessary feature of the judicial process. Second, courts presume juries follow instructions absent evidence to the contrary. Third, the curative instruction was particularly effective because no evidence of prior crimes was presented, and the instruction may have even suggested Nelson had no prior convictions.

The decision reinforces that effective curative instructions can remedy instructional errors without requiring the drastic remedy of mistrial, even when jurors have read erroneous language in printed materials.