State v. Craft
397 P.3d 889
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- In the early morning of March 12, 2013, masked assailants assaulted a man and his mother, took electronics and car keys, and fled; a victim later identified Craft from a photo lineup.
- Police tracked stolen devices to a trailer; Craft was arrested after officers found stolen items, a mask, and a gun in a vehicle behind the trailer; seven people from the trailer were interviewed and three were arrested.
- At trial the State relied mainly on the victim’s identification and a jail-call in which Craft referenced his “homeboys” and said he told them to leave electronics; no physical evidence tied Craft to the stolen property.
- Defense presented an eyewitness-identification expert who critiqued the lineup procedures and identified stressors likely to impair memory; expert nevertheless acknowledged some acceptable procedures (sequential lineup, reasonable foils).
- During testimony about the photo lineup, a detective blurted that Craft’s codefendants had said Craft was at the scene; defense counsel did not object; the court had previously severed Craft’s trial from his codefendants to avoid such incriminating statements.
- Jury convicted Craft of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary; Craft appealed, asserting ineffective assistance for failing to (1) seek exclusion of eyewitness ID and (2) move for a mistrial after the detective’s statement. The Court of Appeals affirmed admissibility but vacated convictions and ordered a new trial based on ineffective assistance for failing to seek a mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Craft's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to exclude the eyewitness ID | Counsel should have sought exclusion because the ID was unreliable under Ramirez factors (dim light, peripheral view, stress, delay, lineup flaws) | Ramirez remains controlling; under Ramirez the ID was admissible and exclusion likely would have failed; trial attack was reasonable strategy | Counsel did not perform deficiently in declining to move to exclude the eyewitness ID (motion likely futile) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial after detective said codefendants placed Craft at the scene | Counsel should have objected and moved for mistrial because the statement improperly introduced codefendant admissions that were the very reason the cases were severed | Statement was unsolicited, brief, innocuous in context, and prosecutor did not emphasize it; objecting might have highlighted it | Counsel’s failure to move for a mistrial was deficient and prejudicial; convictions vacated and remanded for new trial |
| Prejudice inquiry under Strickland: would timely objection/mistrial likely change outcome? | The detective’s statement could have resolved the central disputed issue (presence at scene) and influenced the jury given otherwise non-overwhelming evidence | Other evidence (jail call, expert testimony, identification) supported conviction; statement was isolated | Court found reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the error; prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991) (sets Ramirez factors for admissibility of eyewitness identification)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Cardall, 982 P.2d 79 (Utah 1999) (mistrial required where incident may have or probably influenced jury to defendant's prejudice)
- State v. Allen, 108 P.3d 730 (Utah 2005) (improper testimony may be harmless if unsolicited, in passing, and innocuous in context)
- State v. Larrabee, 321 P.3d 1136 (Utah 2013) (prosecutor’s references to excluded evidence can be highly prejudicial when credibility is central)