State v. Padilla, 427 P.3d 542

In July 2013 Padilla (an 18th Street gang member) and others drove and returned to confront a rival; a cohort shot and killed the Victim. Padilla was charged with murder, felony discharge of a firearm, and obstruction of justice.
Two of Padilla’s companions (who were present in a vehicle) testified for the State under immunity; their testimony implicated Padilla and was largely uncorroborated.
Mid-trial, the court granted a mistrial as to two codefendants but continued the case against Padilla; the court gave curative instructions explaining the procedural dismissals and admonishing the jury not to draw adverse inferences.
Padilla requested a statutory accomplice-caution instruction (Utah Code § 77-17-7(2)); the court modified his proposed instruction (omitting the phrase to "receive with caution" and adding that the defense contended the witnesses were accomplices). Defense objected generally to the edits.
Padilla also sought a mistrial on confrontation/Bruton grounds when out-of-court statements were introduced; the court denied his mistrial motion and gave curative instructions. Defense did not renew the mistrial after the jury asked the bailiff follow-up questions about the prior day’s proceedings.
The jury convicted Padilla of felony discharge of a firearm and obstruction of justice; he appealed challenging (1) the refusal to give the cautionary accomplice instruction and (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to renew the mistrial motion.

Issue	Padilla's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to give a statutory cautionary accomplice instruction under Utah Code § 77-17-7(2)	The accomplices’ testimony was uncorroborated and self-contradictory/uncertain/improbable, making the cautionary instruction mandatory	The witnesses were not accomplices for instruction purposes; the proposed language was improper or redundant and the court’s modification was appropriate	Not preserved for appeal; Padilla failed to ask the trial court to make the specific findings that would trigger the mandatory instruction, so the claim is waived
Whether Padilla received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not renew the mistrial motion after jury confusion	Counsel should have renewed the mistrial when the jury appeared confused and improperly communicated with the bailiff; failure prejudiced Padilla	Counsel reasonably relied on the court’s two curative instructions and declining a renewed mistrial could be sound trial strategy (avoiding a new jury)	Counsel was not deficient for failing to renew the mistrial motion; ineffective-assistance claim fails

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (confrontation rule where a codefendant’s confession inculpates defendant)
State v. Malaga, 132 P.3d 703 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (preservation and standard of review for instructional error)
State v. Kennedy, 354 P.3d 775 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (preservation requires timely, specific argument and opportunity for ruling)
State v. Cruz, 387 P.3d 618 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (curative instructions generally effective and presumed so on appeal)
State v. Curtis, 317 P.3d 968 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (strategic decisions about mistrial vs. curative instruction reviewed with presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Clark, 89 P.3d 162 (Utah 2004) (to show deficient performance, defendant must overcome presumption that counsel’s choices had tactical bases)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (appellate exceptions to preservation, including plain error and ineffective assistance)