State v. Mitton, 2026 UT 11

Mitton was charged with two counts of aggravated assault after an altercation with his brother-in-law, and the State identified his sister-in-law as a potential witness. 1
After the first day of jury trial, Judge Maynard disclosed he was related by marriage to the witness and later said he did not view the relation as a conflict but wanted counsel to have an opportunity to discuss it. 2
Mitton moved to disqualify Judge Maynard, and the presiding judge granted the motion, vacated the trial, and excused the jury before trial resumed. 3
The State then filed an amended information enhancing one count and sought an expedited retrial before the new judge. 4
Mitton moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the jury discharge was not a legal necessity, but the trial court denied dismissal and found no reasonable alternative existed. 5
The court of appeals reversed, holding the legal necessity exception could not apply because the parties were not given an opportunity to object before the mistrial. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does lack of opportunity to object bar legal necessity? 7	Mitton said no objection opportunity made retrial unconstitutional.	State said legal necessity can still exist if no reasonable alternative existed.	No; the omission is not dispositive. 8
What governs legal necessity after mistrial? 9	Mitton argued opportunity to object is an essential element.	State argued courts must assess all circumstances and available alternatives.	Legal necessity turns on whether mistrial was the only reasonable alternative. 10
What review applies when no objection opportunity was given? 11	Mitton argued the mistrial automatically bars retrial.	State argued appellate courts should independently assess the record.	Appellate court must independently assess reasonable alternatives, resolving gaps for defendant. 12
Did court of appeals err in dismissing the charges? 13	Mitton said retrial was barred by double jeopardy.	State said the court used the wrong legal test.	Yes; reversal and remand for further proceedings. 14

State v. Harris, 104 P.3d 1250 (Utah 2004) (articulates the legal necessity framework and required procedural steps for mistrials 15)
State v. Ambrose, 598 P.2d 354 (Utah 1979) (legal necessity means discharge was the only reasonable alternative under the circumstances 16)
State v. Whitman, 74 P.2d 696 (Utah 1937) (early formulation of legal necessity and record requirements for discharge of a jury 17)
State v. Manatau, 322 P.3d 739 (Utah 2014) (reaffirms legal necessity analysis and independent review when the record is inadequate 18)
State v. Cram, 46 P.3d 230 (Utah 2002) (balances defendant’s tribunal interest against the public interest in fair trials ending in just judgments 19)
State v. Labrum, 568 P.3d 1075 (Utah 2025) (describes rulemaking as the preferred method for procedural guidance 20)