Can a defendant obtain severance of unrelated criminal charges? State v. Christensen Explained

In State v. Christensen, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed two critical issues in criminal practice: when courts should sever unrelated charges and the admissibility of prior consistent statements under evidence rules.

Background and Facts

Christensen faced charges arising from events on a single evening in July 2021. He was charged with sexual abuse of his eleven-year-old daughter Nadine, as well as assault charges stemming from his conduct with a shotgun toward his ex-girlfriend Kim, her boyfriend Rick, and responding police officers. When Kim arrived at Christensen’s house to help Nadine, she learned of the alleged abuse and called 911. Christensen then threatened the group with a shotgun while officers responded to the scene.

Key Legal Issues

Christensen raised two primary arguments on appeal. First, he contended the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever the sexual abuse charges from the assault charges. Second, he challenged the admission of body camera footage from Officer 4’s interview with Nadine, arguing it was inadmissible hearsay that did not qualify as a prior consistent statement under Utah Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings. Regarding severance, the court applied the established principle that “any error in denying severance will be deemed harmless unless the defendant can establish a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome if the court had granted a severance.” The court found that even in separate trials, strong evidence existed for conviction on both sets of charges, including Nadine’s testimony, DNA evidence showing her DNA on Christensen’s penis, and testimony from multiple witnesses about his threatening conduct with the shotgun.

On the evidentiary issue, the court relied on State v. Green to hold that prior consistent statements need not “rebut every possible motive to fabricate” but only “tend to rebut one of them.” The court found that while Christensen raised multiple theories about improper interview techniques, the body camera footage predated Nadine’s relationship with Detective, which was one alleged motive to fabricate.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that severance motions require more than showing charges are unrelated—defendants must demonstrate concrete prejudice and a reasonable likelihood of different outcomes. For evidentiary challenges, practitioners should note that Rule 801(d)(1)(B) allows prior consistent statements when they predate any one alleged motive to fabricate, even if other potential motives existed earlier. This creates strategic considerations for both prosecutors seeking to admit such statements and defense counsel challenging them.