State v. Centeno, 537 P.3d 232

Background

In October 2018, Christopher Centeno assaulted his girlfriend (A.C.)—choking her multiple times to unconsciousness, beating her, and then forcing sexual acts in front of their two-year-old; A.C. and other witnesses later corroborated injuries and events.
Police captured body-camera and interrogation footage: Exhibit 19 contained Officer’s bodycam of A.C. (van + station interview); Exhibit 27 was Centeno’s police interview in which he made inculpatory statements.
At trial the State played parts of those videos; the full exhibits (including segments not played) were admitted into evidence and sent to the jury during deliberations. Defense objected post‑verdict to Exhibit 27 going to jurors as unduly emphasizing the interview.
The State called an eight‑year‑old (Child) who broke down on the stand; the prosecution discontinued its examination and the defense chose not to recall Child for cross‑examination. Defense moved for a mistrial and later a new trial.
Jury convicted Centeno of two counts of rape, one aggravated assault, and two counts of domestic violence in the presence of a child; Centeno appealed asserting (1) error in allowing Exhibit 27 in deliberations, (2) ineffective assistance for failing to object to Exhibit 19 and its unplayed station segment going to jury, and (3) mistrial/new trial error stemming from Child’s breakdown.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Centeno)	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by allowing Exhibit 27 (police interview of Centeno) to go to the jury room	Rule 17(k) permits admitted exhibits to go to jury; no undue emphasis when exhibit contains defendant’s inculpatory statements	Allowing the video into deliberations unduly emphasized the police interview; alternative constitutional and prejudice claims (unpreserved)	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; defendant’s incriminating out‑of‑court statements warrant whatever emphasis jurors place on them; alternative theories not preserved
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Exhibit 19 (A.C. bodycam) and not excluding the station segment from deliberations	Admission of the videos was proper and cumulative of trial testimony; any failure to object did not prejudice Centeno given overwhelming evidence and his own admissions	Counsel should have objected to hearsay/unduly prejudicial footage (van/station) and to the unplayed station segment being given to jurors	Rejected — Strickland prejudice not shown; no reasonable probability outcome would differ absent those portions of Exhibit 19
Whether denial of mistrial/new trial was error after Child’s emotional breakdown and the State’s discontinuance of questioning	The court’s curative instruction and defendant’s opportunity to call Child preserved fairness; no Confrontation Clause violation because defense elected not to recall Child	Child’s breakdown left jurors to speculate against Centeno and deprived him of confrontation	Affirmed — no unfair prejudice; Confrontation Clause not violated where defendant could have but did not recall the witness

Key Cases Cited

Wyatt v. State, 493 P.3d 621 (Utah 2021) (Rule 17(k) governs what exhibits juries may take into deliberations and undue‑emphasis framework)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Pinder, 114 P.3d 551 (Utah 2005) (standard for viewing evidence on appeal from jury verdict)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (narrow view of preservation; objections must be specific to preserve issues)
State v. Scott, 462 P.3d 350 (Utah 2020) (prejudice analysis considers whether evidence added enough to affect outcome)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286 (U.S. 2017) (structural‑error principles do not automatically bypass Strickland prejudice analysis when claim is raised as ineffective assistance)
United States v. Noushfar, 78 F.3d 1442 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussed and distinguished by court regarding sending unplayed tapes to jurors)