State v. Yalowski, 404 P.3d 53

On December 20, 2013, Russell Yalowski entered his ex‑girlfriend’s house while she and children were present, threatened that he had people outside who would "shoot up the house," and urinated on the bathroom walls. Police arrested him outside; keys to the victim’s house and car were found in his pocket.
Charges: burglary (second‑degree felony), threat of violence (class B misdemeanor), criminal mischief (class B misdemeanor), and lewdness (acquitted). Jury convicted on the first three counts.
Evidence at trial included the victim’s testimony, corroborating testimony from the victim’s cousin and two officers, photographs of damage to doors, photographs of shoe impressions in the snow, and testimony from a forensic technician and a backup officer comparing tread patterns to Yalowski’s shoes.
Pretrial stipulation excluded evidence of prior acts of violence; defense asked to exclude testimony that impressions matched defendant’s shoes and sought to cross‑examine the victim about three prior instances of dishonesty (some allowed, some denied).
At trial the victim briefly testified (unprompted) that Yalowski had been "getting violent" in the past; the court denied a mistrial. The court allowed limited impeachment (use of false identification) but disallowed questioning about a plea in abeyance and an arrest. The forensic technician and an officer testified that tread patterns were similar/identical to Yalowski’s shoes.

Issue	State's Argument	Yalowski's Argument	Held
Whether denial of mistrial for victim’s unsolicited comment that defendant had been "getting violent" violated Rule 404(b)	The comment was brief, unelicited, and harmless; no mistrial needed	The statement improperly introduced prior bad acts and prejudiced the jury	Court: No abuse of discretion; statement was brief, unelicited, not dwelt on, and harmless (mistrial denial affirmed)
Whether trial court abused discretion by limiting cross‑examination about victim’s plea in abeyance and arrest under Rule 608	Exclusion was proper exercise of discretion given limited probative value and circumstances	Cross‑examination about prior dishonest acts was highly probative of untruthfulness and exclusion prejudiced defense	Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably limited inquiry, permitted questioning on false ID, and exclusion was harmless
Whether lay testimony comparing shoe impressions to defendant’s shoes required expert qualification under Rule 701/702	Lay opinion was rationally based on perception, helpful to jury, and not expert under Rule 702	Comparison required specialized methodology and should have been expert testimony	Court: Lay testimony permissible under Rule 701 (and similar testimony by another officer was admitted); even if error, harmless
Cumulative error	N/A	Combined alleged errors deprived defendant of a fair trial	Court: No cumulative error; errors (if any) were harmless and did not undermine confidence in verdict

State v. Griffiths, 752 P.2d 879 (Utah 1988) (brief, unelicited references to unrelated wrongdoing can be harmless)
State v. Wach, 24 P.3d 948 (Utah 2001) (isolated, off‑hand remarks buried in record do not necessarily require mistrial)
State v. Ellis, 748 P.2d 188 (Utah 1988) (lay witness may give opinion based on personal observation under Rule 701)
State v. Valdez, 141 P.3d 614 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (trial court has broad discretion to limit cross‑examination about prior bad acts not resulting in conviction)
State v. Gomez, 63 P.3d 72 (Utah 2002) (interaction of Rules 403 and 608 regarding probative value of prior acts)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (cumulative error doctrine: reversal only if combined errors undermine confidence in fairness of trial)