State v. Juarez, 489 P.3d 231

Two 17-year-old boys were assaulted and restrained in Godinez Juarez’s home: guns pointed, beaten, bound with weed-eater wire, doused with gasoline/starter fluid, threatened with fire and a chainsaw; they escaped after Teen 1 dialed 911.
Police located physical evidence (Fiji bottle with liquid, starter fluid, guns, chainsaw) and items tying Godinez Juarez to the residence; Godinez Juarez admitted at the station to binding and pouring liquid on the teens and said he wanted to "teach them a lesson."
The State charged Godinez Juarez with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault; a codefendant faced similar charges and made out-of-court statements implicating Godinez Juarez.
To address Bruton issues, the State sought a dual-jury procedure (two juries in one trial), which Trial Counsel stipulated to; juries wore different-colored lanyards and were separated for testimony creating potential Bruton problems.
During trial several witnesses and once the prosecutor used the word "victim" when referring to the complaining witnesses despite a court directive not to; the court denied a mistrial but gave a curative jury instruction; Godinez Juarez was convicted on all counts and appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	Godinez Juarez's Argument	Held
Whether Trial Counsel was ineffective for agreeing to a dual-jury trial	Stipulating to dual juries was a reasonable strategic choice and did not prejudice the defense; court took precautions to prevent Bruton prejudice	Counsel’s agreement to a dual-jury trial deprived him of effective assistance and likely prejudiced the outcome	No ineffective assistance: defendant failed to show Strickland prejudice; outcome would not likely differ under single jury
Whether denial of mistrial for witnesses/prosecutor referring to complaining witnesses as "victims" was abuse of discretion	Uses were inadvertent, limited, and cured by instruction; context showed no dispute that the teens were victims of some crime	Repeated references to "victim" prejudiced the jury and warranted a mistrial	No abuse of discretion: references were sporadic, context showed the teens were clearly victims, and curative instruction sufficed
Whether jury should be instructed it "may" acquit despite proof beyond a reasonable doubt (jury nullification instruction)	Statute binds courts; no persuasive argument to override the statutory rule	Trial Counsel sought change from "must" to "may" on constitutional grounds	Not resolved on the merits: statute forbids such an instruction and defendant did not press a constitutional argument on appeal

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (codefendant out-of-court statements that implicate co-defendant implicate Confrontation Clause concerns)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Vallejo, 449 P.3d 39 (Utah 2019) (analysis of prejudice and curative instruction when witnesses or court refer to complaining witnesses as "victims")
State v. Devey, 138 P.3d 90 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (use of term "victim" during trial may be improper where defendant contests whether a crime occurred)