Can religious references in evidence be excluded as unfairly prejudicial? State v. Bryson Explained

In State v. Bryson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether religious and personal references in evidence should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial under Utah Rule of Evidence 403, even when they serve a legitimate probative purpose.

Background and Facts

Harold Otto Bryson violated a civil stalking injunction by sending his former girlfriend a FedEx letter in May 2014. The letter, signed with Bryson’s nickname “Harry,” contained extensive references to the Book of Mormon, quoted religious scriptures, and claimed that the victim’s deceased father and grandfather would speak to her in dreams. Before trial on second-degree felony stalking charges, Bryson moved to redact these religious and family references, arguing they “could arouse an emotion in the jury that would be extremely prejudicial” and might disturb LDS jurors. The district court denied the motion.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two main issues: whether the district court erred in denying the motion to redact under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and reviewed sufficiency claims by viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the religious and family references were relevant to prove Bryson’s identity as the letter’s author. The package was addressed with only Bryson’s first name and the victim’s last name, and the letter was signed with his nickname rather than his full name. The personal details about the victim’s family and specific religious information helped establish that Bryson authored the letter. Regarding Rule 403, the court found that while the evidence may have been prejudicial, it was not unfairly prejudicial, especially given the trial court’s careful voir dire questioning about religious bias and dismissal of one potentially biased juror.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that probative value can overcome potential prejudice when evidence serves a legitimate purpose in proving an element of the case. Practitioners should remember that all effective evidence is prejudicial to some degree—Rule 403 only excludes evidence when probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. When challenging potentially inflammatory evidence, focus on demonstrating that any probative value is minimal compared to the prejudicial impact, rather than merely arguing that the evidence might be offensive or disturbing to jurors.