What Happened
A Cedar City woman, Jennifer McCraw, got into an argument with her girlfriend in their home. During the fight, she threw a few plates, breaking them on the floor while her girlfriend’s young child watched.
Police charged her with criminal mischief and domestic violence in the presence of a child.
When the case went to trial, McCraw didn’t show up. Her attorney told the judge she was homeless and had moved out of state. But instead of asking to postpone the trial or explaining that her absence might not be voluntary, the attorney let the court proceed without her.
The prosecutor didn’t call any witnesses. Instead, the City proffered what the witnesses would have said: that McCraw broke plates during an argument, that the child saw it happen, and that McCraw later admitted it.
What no one mentioned? Who owned the plates.
Even so, McCraw’s attorney made no motions, asked no questions, and gave no closing argument. The judge found McCraw guilty on both counts.
The Problem on Appeal
On appeal, McCraw argued that her attorney had failed her. Specifically, she said the attorney should have moved for a directed verdict. This motion asks the judge to dismiss the case when the prosecution hasn’t proven an essential element of the crime.
Under Utah’s criminal mischief law (Utah Code § 76-6-106), prosecutors must show that the defendant damaged “the property of another.” But the City never proved that. The evidence showed only that the plates were broken—nothing about who owned them.
Without that proof, the conviction couldn’t legally stand.
What the Court Said
The Utah Court of Appeals agreed.
The court held that any competent attorney should have noticed the missing evidence and asked for a directed verdict. Failing to do so was objectively unreasonable and met the first part of the Strickland v. Washington test for ineffective assistance of counsel.
As for the second part—prejudice—the court found it likely that the outcome would have been different if the attorney had acted. The trial judge would have been required to dismiss the case, and without the criminal-mischief conviction, the domestic-violence charge would have fallen too.
The appellate court vacated both convictions and sent the case back for a new trial.
Why This Case Matters
This case is a sharp reminder that criminal defense is an active job. Doing nothing is not a strategy. When prosecutors miss an essential element, it’s the defense lawyer’s duty to speak up.
Even small details—like who owned a broken plate—can determine guilt or innocence.
For Utah defendants, this case reinforces an important point: you have the right to an attorney who will challenge weak evidence, ask hard questions, and make the proper motions at the right time.
Key Takeaways
- Prosecutors must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Defense counsel must stay alert and challenge missing evidence.
- Silence in court can amount to ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
- If your lawyer fails to act, you may have grounds to appeal.
Facing Criminal Mischief or Domestic Violence Charges in Utah?
At Stone River Law, our defense team knows how quickly a case can turn on a single missing fact. We dig deep, challenge weak evidence, and protect your rights at every stage.
If you or someone you love has been charged with criminal mischief, domestic violence, or any Utah misdemeanor, don’t wait.