Can trial courts allow video evidence of police interviews to accompany juries during deliberations? State v. Centeno Explained

In State v. Centeno, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether trial courts may allow video footage of a defendant’s police interview to accompany the jury during deliberations, providing important guidance on Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(k) and the standards governing jury access to trial exhibits.

Background and Facts

Christopher Centeno was convicted of rape, aggravated assault, and domestic violence after a violent attack on his girlfriend that occurred in front of their two-year-old daughter. During trial, the State introduced video footage of Centeno’s police interview as Exhibit 27. After the jury retired to deliberate, defense counsel objected to the video exhibit going to the jury room, arguing it would “bolster the prosecution’s case” and place undue emphasis on the interview. The trial court overruled the objection and allowed the exhibit to accompany the jury.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three main issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the police interview video to go to the jury room; (2) whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain video evidence; and (3) whether the court erred in denying motions for mistrial and new trial after a child witness became emotional and could not complete her testimony.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed on all issues. Regarding the video exhibit, the court emphasized that Rule 17(k) “expressly allows the jury to take all exhibits back to deliberations except those which the court decides in its discretion the jury should not have.” The court noted that a defendant’s incriminating out-of-court statements generally “warrant whatever emphasis” the jury chooses to place on them, as such statements carry little risk of undue emphasis. The court rejected Centeno’s ineffective assistance claims, finding no reasonable probability that exclusion of the contested evidence would have changed the verdict given the overwhelming evidence against him.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah courts will generally allow all admitted exhibits to accompany juries during deliberations unless doing so would create a likelihood of injustice. Practitioners should note that preservation of error requires specific objections—Centeno’s general “undue emphasis” objection did not preserve his constitutional arguments for appeal. The case also demonstrates that ineffective assistance claims face a high bar when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, even where counsel’s tactical decisions may appear questionable in hindsight.