Can testimonial exhibits go to the jury room during deliberations? State v. Wyatt Explained

In State v. Wyatt, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether testimonial exhibits can accompany juries during deliberations under Rule 17(k) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. The case involved a defendant who challenged his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault, arguing that his recorded police interview should not have gone back with the jury because it contained testimonial evidence.

Background and Facts

Timothy Wyatt entered a college fitness center at night and committed theft before setting up an ambush in the women’s locker room. He disabled lights, locked stall doors, and waited for a victim. When Alice entered, Wyatt grabbed her from behind, covering her mouth and grabbing her breast before she escaped. During his subsequent police interview, Wyatt’s story changed multiple times, initially denying contact with the victim before eventually admitting to placing his hand over her mouth. The State played excerpts of this recorded interview at trial, and over defense objection, the trial court allowed the recording to go back with the jury during deliberations.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Rule 17(k) prohibits testimonial exhibits from going to the jury room during deliberations. Wyatt argued that the rule categorically excluded such evidence, relying on the court’s earlier decision in State v. Carter. The court also addressed two ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding defective jury instructions and failure to object to prejudicial testimony.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that Rule 17(k) does not categorically prohibit testimonial exhibits from going back with the jury. The court noted that after Carter, the rule was modified to remove language about depositions, and the current version expressly allows “all exhibits” to go back with the jury, subject only to the trial court’s discretion. The plain language of the rule controls, and any exceptions are left to the sound discretion of the district court rather than categorical exclusions. The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the defendant’s recorded statements to accompany the jury, noting that such recordings typically warrant whatever emphasis may result since the defendant furnished the harmful evidence against himself.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts how practitioners approach exhibits containing testimonial evidence. Rather than seeking categorical exclusions based on the testimonial nature of evidence, attorneys must focus on case-specific factors that might warrant exercise of the court’s discretion to exclude exhibits. Arguments should center on practical concerns such as undue emphasis, potential for confusion, or other prejudicial effects rather than blanket objections to testimonial content. The ruling also reinforces that trial courts have broad latitude in managing jury deliberations, making preservation of specific objections and development of a clear record essential for any appeal challenging exhibit admission decisions.