State v. Christensen Case Summary
The Utah Court of Appeals has recently released a new opinion on the matter of the State v. Isaac Christensen, 2025 UT App 86. One night during July of 2021, Isaac Christensen was home alone with his 11-year-old daughter, Nadine. Based on police statements, Nadine became afraid of Isaac, who was acting erratically, and called Isaac’s ex-girlfriend Kim for help. Kim drove up to Isaac’s home with her current boyfriend and their baby.
Upon arrival, Isaac was threatening Kim and her family with a shotgun, and resisted attempts from Kim to get Nadine away from him. Nadine later told Kim and other investigators that Christensen had performed acts of physical and sexual abuse on her that night.
Eventually, Law enforcement showed up at the scene, who were also threatened by Christensen according to their statements. They arrived inconspicuously at the scene by parking down the street and approaching Christensen with flashlights. Isaac was successfully detained and Nadine was moved to a family member’s house for investigative interviewing. Forensic Examinations of both Nadine and Christensen were used to analyze Nadine’s statements on the night, and there was some DNA evidence found on Isaac to support the story.
The Motion to Sever
Based on these alleged events, Christensen was to be tried for “three counts related to the alleged abuse of Nadine…, four counts of assault against a peace officer…, two counts of aggravated assault…, two counts of commission of domestic violence in the presence of a child…, and one count of criminal mischief“. Christensen requested the motion to sever his sexual abuse and assault charges, insisting that they had no correlation. He believed the charges being tried together created a bias narrative that would prejudice the jury and hinder his case.
Legal Precedents
Christensen’s argument that the court abused its discretion was met with the ruling from State v. Lim, 2022 UT App 69. Lim explains that “The grant or denial of severance is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, so we reverse a denial only if the trial judge’s refusal to sever… sacrifices the defendant’s right to a fundamentally fair trial.”
There were a plethora of reasons that the court cited in demonstrating that the right to a fair trial has not been breached in Christensen. According to State v. Jaimez, 817 P.2d 822 (1991), “severance is not a matter of right” and multiple felonies can be tried simultaneously if the offenses are… “based on the same conduct.” Additionally, based on a previous decision in State v. Covington, 2020 UT App 110, the failure to allow severance is “deemed harmless unless the defendant can establish a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome” if it had been granted.
Outcome
Considering precedents and failure to prove a different outcome if granted, the motion to sever was denied by the court. Christensen’s conviction was confirmed.