Utah Court of Appeals
When should trial counsel move for a mistrial after improper testimony? State v. Craft Explained
Summary
Justin Craft was convicted of aggravated robbery and burglary based primarily on eyewitness identification and a jail phone call. During trial, a detective improperly testified that Craft’s codefendants had said he was at the scene, but defense counsel failed to object or move for a mistrial. The court had previously severed Craft’s trial specifically to avoid introduction of codefendant statements.
Analysis
In State v. Craft, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question for criminal defense practitioners: when does the failure to move for a mistrial constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? The court’s analysis provides important guidance on balancing strategic considerations against the duty to protect fundamental defense theories.
Background and Facts
Craft was charged with aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary following a home invasion. The primary evidence against him consisted of eyewitness identification and a recorded jail phone call. Recognizing the prejudicial nature of codefendant statements, the trial court had granted severance to try Craft separately from his codefendants. However, during trial, a detective inadvertently testified that “the other two defendants [said] he was there” when asked about selecting photos for the lineup. Defense counsel neither objected nor moved for a mistrial.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two ineffective assistance claims: whether counsel should have moved to exclude the eyewitness identification and whether counsel should have sought a mistrial after the detective’s improper statement. The court applied the familiar Strickland standard requiring both deficient performance and prejudice.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
While rejecting the challenge to the eyewitness identification under State v. Ramirez, the court found counsel’s failure to seek a mistrial constituted ineffective assistance. The detective’s statement was not “innocuous” because it went to the heart of Craft’s defense—that he was not present at the crime scene. The court emphasized that severance had been granted specifically to avoid such prejudicial evidence, and no strategic justification existed for remaining silent.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that counsel must vigilantly protect core defense theories, particularly when improper evidence undermines the very reason for severance. The court rejected the argument that staying silent was strategic to avoid highlighting the improper testimony, noting this reasoning could “significantly undermine our ineffective assistance of counsel doctrine.” Defense attorneys should immediately object and move for mistrial when excluded evidence is improperly introduced, especially evidence that directly contradicts the defendant’s primary defense strategy.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Craft
Citation
2017 UT App 87
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150750-CA
Date Decided
May 25, 2017
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for a mistrial when a detective improperly testified that codefendants had placed the defendant at the crime scene.
Standard of Review
For ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised for the first time on appeal, the court decides whether the defendant was deprived of effective assistance as a matter of law
Practice Tip
When trials are severed to exclude codefendant statements, immediately move for mistrial if such evidence is inadvertently introduced, as strategic silence rarely justifies failing to protect core defense theories.
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.