State v. Jok
2015 UT App 90
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant John Atem Jok and codefendant David Deng Akok were with a friend and later at N.C.’s apartment where alcohol was consumed; N.C. fell asleep on the couch.
- N.C. awoke to Jok touching her breasts; she pushed him away and told him to stop, after which Jok digitally penetrated her causing pain.
- While Jok stopped, Akok then assaulted N.C., forcibly removing her clothing and engaging in intercourse; semen matching Akok was later found in N.C.’s vagina.
- N.C. reported the assault, was examined by a sexual-assault nurse (injuries consistent but not conclusive), and the police arrested both men; Jok appeared intoxicated at arrest.
- Jok was charged with two counts of forcible sexual abuse and one count of intoxication; tried jointly with Akok after a denied severance motion; Jok did not testify and maintained he did not touch N.C.
- During rebuttal closing, the prosecutor told jurors, “Don’t let them take advantage of it again,” prompting a prejudicial-misconduct claim; the trial court gave a partial admonition and denied a mistrial; jury convicted Jok. On appeal, the court reverses and remands for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct from closing remark | State argued remark was a permissible plea to justice and victim protection | Jok argued remark was improper, appealed as prejudicial and likely affected verdict | Court held remark improper and prejudicial; admonition insufficient; convictions reversed and remanded (per Akok) |
| Sufficiency of admonishment | State implicitly defended court’s partial admonition as adequate | Jok (and co-defendant) argued court should have given requested specific admonition or granted mistrial | Court found admonishment insufficient to cure prejudice in light of prosecutor’s comments |
| Severance denial | State argued joinder was proper under Utah law and not unduly prejudicial | Jok argued joinder prejudiced his right to fair trial and sought severance | Court did not definitively rule due to dispositive misconduct ground but recommended careful consideration of severance on remand; suggested separate trials likely appropriate |
| Ineffective assistance for not raising voluntary-intoxication defense | State argued counsel’s strategy to deny any touching was legitimate | Jok argued counsel should have asserted voluntary-intoxication as an affirmative defense | Court held counsel’s choice consistent with strategy and not objectively deficient; not ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Holgate v. State, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (appellate review of facts in light most favorable to jury verdict)
- Gardner v. State, 789 P.2d 273 (Utah 1989) (standard for reversal for prosecutorial misconduct: reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result without the error)
- Lopez v. State, 789 P.2d 39 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (denial of severance reviewed for abuse of discretion affecting right to fair trial)
- James v. State, 819 P.2d 781 (Utah 1991) (courts may address issues likely to recur on remand)
- Campos v. State, 309 P.3d 1160 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (choice between inconsistent defenses is trial strategy, not ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)