State v. Nelson, 253 P.3d 1094

Nelson was convicted of distributing or arranging to distribute a controlled substance under Utah law.
Instruction No. 5 mistakenly described a prior-conviction predicate and included language about cocaine that was later stricken.
The trial court instructed jurors to strike the offending language and restated the charge without it.
Nelson moved for mistrial arguing the printed instructions still exposed jurors to the erroneous language; the court denied the motion.
The court gave a curative instruction stating the tainted language was not part of the charge and there was no evidence of prior crimes.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial and finding curative instruction effective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of mistrial was an abuse of discretion.	Nelson contends the tainted instruction could have biased jurors.	State argues the curative steps protected fairness and the denial was proper.	No abuse; mistrial denial affirmed.
Whether the curative instruction adequately mitigated prejudice from the misinstruction.	Curative instruction failed to neutralize potential prejudice.	Curative instruction properly explained the error and that no prior-crime evidence existed.	Curative instruction effective; no fair-trial impairment.

State v. Decorso, 993 P.2d 837 (Utah 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for mistrial decisions; record not plainly wrong)
State v. Harmon, 956 P.2d 262 (Utah 1998) (curative instructions are essential to remedy trial errors)
State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994) (jury presumed to follow court instructions)
State v. Burk, 839 P.2d 880 (Utah Ct.App. 1992) (jury diligence presumed absent persuasive contrary evidence)