State v. Dunne, 463 P.3d 100

March 2017: Dunne and a companion drove to a store; companion concealed items in a car seat and left without paying; Dunne placed diapers and a humidifier in his cart and exited without paying. A store greeter followed Dunne, asked for a receipt, Dunne waved a paper and said “I don’t have to stop.”
Greeter recorded Dunne’s license plate; loss-prevention Associate reviewed surveillance video showing Dunne leaving without paying, later identified Dunne (photographed at another store wearing same clothes) and provided information to police.
Friend was later detained for a separate theft, given use immunity, and testified that he and Dunne went to the store to steal and that Dunne stole the diapers and humidifier.
Dunne testified in his own defense, denied stealing, claimed he purchased the items but lost the receipt, and admitted prior guilty pleas to other crimes but said he was innocent in this case.
On re-cross, the prosecutor asked whether Dunne had planned to plead guilty but changed his mind because the State would not give him the sentence he wanted; defense objected as improper plea-negotiation evidence, the court sustained the objection, defense moved for a mistrial, and the court denied the mistrial.
Jury convicted; on appeal Dunne argued the prosecutor’s question about plea negotiations violated Utah Rule of Evidence 410 and was so prejudicial that a mistrial should have been granted.

Issue	State's Argument	Dunne's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after the prosecutor’s question referencing plea negotiations	The question did not elicit a substantive answer, the court promptly sustained the objection, and any reference was harmless given the evidence	The question improperly referenced plea negotiations in violation of Rule 410 and prejudiced the jury by implying guilt, requiring a mistrial	Denial affirmed: even assuming the question was improper, it did not so likely influence the jury as to deny a fair trial given overwhelming evidence and the prompt curative action

State v. Goins, 423 P.3d 1236 (Utah 2017) (on appeal, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict)
State v. Wach, 24 P.3d 948 (Utah 2001) (trial court’s denial of mistrial reviewed for abuse of discretion; isolated remarks not necessarily reversible given totality of evidence)
State v. Allen, 108 P.3d 730 (Utah 2005) (appellate reversal only if incident so likely influenced the jury that defendant was denied a fair trial)
State v. Butterfield, 27 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2001) (improper statements may be harmless where totality of evidence strongly supports conviction)
State v. Duran, 262 P.3d 468 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (mistrial required only when a fair trial cannot be had)
State v. Milligan, 287 P.3d 1 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (potentially prejudicial remarks do not mandate mistrial where strong evidentiary support exists)
State v. Yalowski, 404 P.3d 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (isolated, vague improper statements did not prejudice defendant given the totality of testimony)