State v. Murdock, 253 P.3d 80

Murdock was convicted of forcible sodomy under Utah Code § 76-5-403(1)-(2).
The State allegedly violated Rule 16 discovery by misrepresenting the DNA swab testing status.
During trial, the court excluded some evidence and read a stipulation that the second DNA swab was not tested because it was allegedly insufficient.
Murdock requested a mistrial and additional discovery related to the swab; the court denied a mistrial but allowed the exclusion remedy.
On appeal, the State concedes potential discovery issues for purposes of the appeal; the Utah Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mistrial a remedy for discovery violation?	State contends no abuse since prejudice was absent.	Murdoch argues trial court abused by denying mistrial.	No abuse; no substantial prejudice from misstatement.
Remand for additional discovery?	State asserts no need for further discovery beyond remedy.	Murdoch seeks continuance for testing status.	Waiver; continuance not sought; no remand required.

State v. Martinez, 2002 UT App 126 (Utah App. 2002) (discovery violation prejudice standard; abuse of discretion review)
State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994) (Rule 16 remedies available to cure prejudice)
State v. Bakalov, 1999 UT 45 (Utah) (Rule 16 remedies adequate to cure prejudice)
State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913 (Utah 1987) (courts can obviate prejudice from discovery breaches)
State v. Christofferson, 793 P.2d 944 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (alternative remedies proper; grant of dismissal not required when other remedies exist)