State of Utah v. Wayland Derk Savage

Caldwell, Idaho criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with grand theft, resisting and obstructing, and being a persistent violator,



At trial, the State called the victim of the stolen car, Officer Burgoyne, and Detective Scott as witnesses. The victim testified that during the early morning hours, he drove to work, parked his car, and left his car unlocked with the keys inside. About two hours later, he returned to check on his vehicle and realized that it was gone. He called the police and reported his vehicle as stolen. Officer Burgoyne testified that he saw the report of the solen vehicle, located the vehicle while it was being driven, and initiated a traffic stop. The driver of the stolen vehicle, Savage, exited the vehicle and did not initially comply with Officer Burgoyne's commands to turn around and put his hands on his head. Officer Burgoyne eventually took Savage into custody. Detective Scott testified next that while Savage was in custody, Savage explained to Detective Scott that he intended to drive the car to Boise and then either contact the vehicle's owner or report the vehicle as stolen so it would be recovered. In his defense, Savage testified that while he took the vehicle without permission, he was merely using it to get to Boise because he was stranded in Nampa. Savage stated that he intended to go to a homeless shelter in Boise and would then report the vehicle as stolen.



During his rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor stated people who are caught in the act lie and make up stories. After the jury reached its verdict, but before the verdict was announced, Savage moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by comparing Savage to a pedophile on the television series To Catch a Predator.[1] The prosecutor indicated he was only commenting on Savage's credibility. The district court denied Savage's motion, holding that the prosecutor's comments were not misconduct and did not warrant a mistrial. The jury found Savage guilty on both counts. Savage admitted to the persistent violator enhancement. Savage timely appealed from the judgment of conviction.



* * *



Legal issue Did the district court err in denying a motion for a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. MISTRIAL. The case addresses whether the prosecutor's comments during closing argument, which compared the defendant's credibility to that of individuals caught committing sex crimes, constituted prosecutorial misconduct warranting a mistrial.



CRIMINAL LAW. REVIEWING DENIAL OF MISTRIAL. The appellate court analyzed whether the district court's denial of the defendant's mistrial motion constituted reversible error, focusing on the impact of the prosecutor's statements on the fairness of the trial.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. The court evaluated the boundaries of prosecutorial comments during closing arguments and determined whether the prosecutor's rebuttal remarks improperly appealed to the jury's emotion, passion, or prejudice.



Key Phrases Grand theft conviction. Prosecutorial misconduct. Persistent violator enhancement. Motion for mistrial. Closing argument.

Affirmed