State v. Yusuf

2025 UT App 189

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee,
v.
REDWAN A. YUSUF,
Appellant.

Opinion
No. 20240190-CA
Filed December 18, 2025

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Amber M. Mettler
No. 221904313

Dain Smoland and Staci Visser,
Attorneys for Appellant
Derek E. Brown and Erin Riley,
Attorneys for Appellee

JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion,
in which JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and JOHN D. LUTHY
concurred.

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:

¶1 Following an altercation with his wife (Wife) that took
place in front of three children, Redwan A. Yusuf was charged
with aggravated assault, three counts of domestic violence in the
presence of a child, attempted mayhem, and assault. At trial, the
State called Wife as a witness. In addition, over Yusuf’s objection,
the State introduced a video recording of Wife’s interview with
police on the night of the incident. The district court subsequently
allowed, again over Yusuf’s objection, the jury to have access to
the video during deliberations. Thereafter, the jury found Yusuf
guilty on all counts.
State v. Yusuf

¶2 Yusuf now appeals. He argues that the district court
improperly admitted the video of Wife’s interview into evidence
and that had the video not been improperly admitted, the result
of the trial would have been different. We agree with Yusuf and
accordingly vacate his convictions and remand the matter for a
new trial.

BACKGROUND 1

The Alleged Assault

¶3 One evening, Yusuf was upstairs in the home he shared
with Wife and their four children. Wife was in the kitchen
downstairs mopping the floor. Wife claimed that Yusuf came
down the stairs and he was “angry” and “yelling” at her. Wife
reported that Yusuf grabbed her by her hair and threw her to the
ground. Wife, who was seven months pregnant with their fifth
child, stated that she tried to cover her stomach with her hands.
According to Wife, Yusuf held her neck with one hand while he
continued to push her to the ground. Wife claimed she saw a
“small” knife in Yusuf’s other hand and he was “gesturing” that

1. “On appeal from a jury verdict, we review the record facts in a
light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and recite the facts
accordingly, presenting conflicting evidence only as necessary to
understand issues raised on appeal.” State v. Dever, 2022 UT App
35, n.2, 508 P.3d 158 (quotation simplified). “Recognizing,
however, that our reversal of [Yusuf’s] conviction[s] causes the
presumption of innocence to reattach, we apply the foregoing
standard somewhat guardedly here. Specifically, concerning the
facts surrounding the charged crimes, we identify the evidence
that supports the verdict, while refraining from characterizing the
alleged criminal conduct as established fact.” State v. Jimenez, 2025
UT App 76, n.1, 571 P.3d 834 (citation omitted), petition for cert.
filed, July 23, 2025 (No. 20250834).

20240190-CA 2 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

he would “hit” her with it. Wife “felt he may . . . kill” her so she
“started screaming.”

¶4 Wife explained that one of the children in the house
heard her screaming and came to help. The child reportedly told
Yusuf to “stop” and then ran to call his brothers. Wife stated
that although Yusuf did not stop holding her down, he did
hide the knife somewhere, possibly “in his pocket.” According to
Wife, Yusuf proceeded to kick and punch her in her back
and kidneys. At this point, the child returned with two other boys.
Wife claimed that all three children jumped in to try and
stop Yusuf, but Yusuf continued to pull on Wife until the clothing
she was wearing “tore apart.” Then, Yusuf allegedly pushed his
index and middle fingers into Wife’s eyes and “tr[ied] to pull [her]
eyes out.” Wife reported that the altercation eventually ended
after one of the children gave Wife a phone and Yusuf saw Wife
calling 911.

The Investigation

¶5 When police arrived at the house, they spoke to Wife. One
of the officers (Officer) recorded his five-minute conversation
with Wife on his body camera (the video). The video shows
Wife—who appears visibly bedraggled and emotionally upset—
reenacting the assault on one of her young sons by pulling his
hair, grabbing him on the back of his neck, pushing him to the
ground, and punching him in the back. During this reenactment,
Wife describes to Officer what she is doing in English. In the
background, the layout of the downstairs of the house is visible,
as are multiple other children, the youngest of whom is an infant. 2

2. At the time of the incident, additional children were upstairs in
the house. Although some of these children had moved
downstairs by the time Officer arrived and are visible in the video,
only three children actually witnessed the incident.

20240190-CA 3 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

¶6 Officer also took photographs of Wife’s injuries. He noticed
that Wife’s “cheeks were very red,” but he did not notice any
other injuries. And although Officer searched for the knife Wife
alleged Yusuf had brandished during the incident, he was unable
to find one.

¶7 Approximately one week after the incident, Yusuf was
interviewed over the phone by a detective (Detective). At the
beginning of the roughly nine-minute conversation, Yusuf told
Detective that his English was not great. Detective did not use an
interpreter, however, because he felt Yusuf was able to
understand him and could explain what had happened. Yusuf
proceeded to tell Detective that the argument with Wife started
over bills. He said that Wife “got in his face” and then “she fell
and grabbed onto his shirt or his neck area.” Yusuf claimed that
after Wife fell, he “called for one of [his] children to come
downstairs and help her” and then he left. Detective asked Yusuf
“several times” if anything physical happened, and Yusuf
consistently said “no.” Detective also asked Yusuf multiple times
about having a knife. In response to the first inquiry, Yusuf gave
a non-responsive answer, telling Detective that he was a truck
driver and “leaves the house for long periods of time.” When
pressed again, Yusuf told Detective there was no knife.

¶8 Yusuf was charged with aggravated assault, three counts
of domestic violence in the presence of a child, attempted
mayhem, and assault.

The Pretrial Proceedings

¶9 After the case was set for a jury trial to begin on November
6, 2023, the district court issued a pretrial scheduling order. That
order included the following motion deadline: “All motions,
including any motions in limine, must be filed no later than
September 15, 2023. Absent a showing of good cause, the failure
to file a motion within this time period may result in waiver of the

20240190-CA 4 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

issue.” (Emphasis added.) The parties were also ordered to
“disclose witness and exhibit lists to the opposing party” “no later
than 14 days” before trial. Here, that date fell on October 23, 2023.

¶10 On September 25, 2023—after the motion deadline but
before the witness and exhibit lists deadline—the State filed its
witness and exhibit lists. The video was included on the exhibit
list.

The Trial

¶11 Jury selection took place on November 6, 2023. The next
day, right before the State’s opening statement, Yusuf’s counsel
notified the court that he intended to object to two of the State’s
proposed exhibits—one of which was the video. He explained
that the video was hearsay that would serve to bolster the
testimony of Wife, who was present at trial and planned to testify.
Yusuf’s counsel asked the court whether it would “prefer” to
address his objections when the evidence was introduced or
before the jury arrived. The court replied, “We can do it now.”

¶12 The State then objected to Yusuf’s motion to exclude the
video. At the outset, the State reminded the district court of the
“September 15 deadline” for filing motions in limine. The court
responded, “I know. Get to the substance.” The State proceeded
to argue that the video was not hearsay because the purpose of
the video was to show “the physical layout” of the house, Wife’s
“physical state” after the incident, and Wife’s “tone” when talking
to Officer.

¶13 The district court denied the motion. The court concluded
that the video was admissible as “a prior consistent statement.” In
addition, the court noted that the State’s timeliness argument was
“a fair point” because Yusuf had apparently known about the
video “for a long time.” Given this fact, the court also found that
the motion was “untimely.”

20240190-CA 5 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

¶14 Following the district court’s ruling, the State presented its
opening statement. After that, Wife was called to the stand. With
help from an interpreter, Wife recounted the incident consistently
with the above narrative. During Wife’s testimony, six of Officer’s
photographs from the night of the incident were introduced into
evidence. These photos depicted Wife’s disheveled hair and
flushed face, “scratches” on her hand and chin, as well as a small
cut on the bridge of her nose. Although Wife testified that Yusuf
had kicked and punched her in her back and kidneys, there were
no visible bruises on Wife’s body in the photos. Wife opined that
the bruises were not visible due to her “darker skin.” Once the
photos were introduced, the video was received as evidence and
played for the jury.

¶15 Both Officer and Detective testified briefly for the State
consistently with the facts outlined above. Officer recounted his
investigation and observations of the scene. Detective testified
about his phone call with Yusuf, and a recording of the call was
then admitted into evidence and played for the jury.

¶16 With the help of an interpreter, Yusuf testified in his own
defense. Yusuf’s account of events was markedly different from
Wife’s. Yusuf testified that on the night of the incident, he went
downstairs to use the bathroom and found Wife mopping the
floor. Yusuf stated that he told Wife he wanted to mop instead of
her because she was pregnant and had other children to care for.
Yusuf claimed that Wife became angry and told him that what she
really needed was additional money to cover the household
expenses. Yusuf reportedly told Wife that he could not afford to
give her more money. According to Yusuf, Wife began to hit him
with the broom handle, and he put his hands up to protect
himself. Yusuf stated that he asked Wife to “calm down” but she
continued to hit his hands with the broom until it broke, which he
claimed left him with a scar. Yusuf said that Wife then walked
away from him. Yusuf reported that at this point he tried to leave
the house, but as he was retrieving his keys, he looked back and

20240190-CA 6 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

saw Wife fall. Yusuf explained that he then decided to go back
and help Wife stand up, but as he was doing so Wife purposely
grabbed his coat, which made it hard for him to breathe. Yusuf
then took off his shirt and left the house.

¶17 Yusuf was also questioned regarding his interview with
Detective. Yusuf testified that it was “hard” for him to understand
Detective’s questions because his understanding of English is
only “50/50.” Moreover, Yusuf stated that it was likewise “hard”
for Detective to understand his answers because it is difficult for
him to answer in English. Yusuf admitted that although he told
Detective that Wife “was angry and she beat [him] up,” he did not
tell Detective about the broom. Yusuf also denied having a knife,
kicking Wife, or trying to pull Wife’s eyes out. And during cross-
examination, Yusuf admitted that, prior to trial, he had not told
anyone about the broom, his injuries, or his scar.

¶18 Before closing arguments, Yusuf’s counsel asked the
district court to not allow the jury to have access to the video
during deliberations. Among other things, he argued that
allowing the jury to “continually” rewatch the video during
deliberations would place “undue emphasis” on Wife’s account
and would “bolster her testimony.” The court disagreed, ruling
that the video could go back with the jury during deliberations.

¶19 In closing, the State focused on the issue of credibility. It
argued that Yusuf’s version of events had changed over time and
that neither version “ma[de] sense,” whereas Wife’s version
“matched” the version recounted by both Officer and Detective.
The State also asserted that Wife’s account was consistent with the
physical evidence, including her injuries depicted in the
photographs from the night of the incident.

¶20 Yusuf’s counsel argued in closing that the purported
inconsistences between Yusuf’s interview with Detective and
Yusuf’s testimony at trial were due to the obvious language

20240190-CA 7 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

barrier and that, in any event, the accounts were not that
inconsistent because Yusuf had consistently maintained that he
“was attacked.” Regarding the photographs, Yusuf’s counsel
noted the lack of visible bruising on Wife’s body and argued that
Wife’s “flushed” face and the “[s]cratches on [her] arm” were not
injuries consistent with the “very egregious attack” that Wife had
described. Yusuf’s counsel concluded that, based on these
deficiencies, the State had not proven its case beyond a reasonable
doubt.

¶21 The jury spent approximately four hours in deliberation.
During this time, the jury sent the following question to the
district court: “Did [Wife] see the video prior to her testimony? (In
preparation for the trial.)” The court declined to answer the
question, telling the jury that it “must rely on the evidence
presented in the trial.”

¶22 The jury convicted Yusuf as charged, and Yusuf timely
appealed.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶23 Yusuf argues the district court improperly admitted the
video into evidence. 3 “A district court’s decision to admit or
exclude evidence is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion,
unless it involves a legal question, which is reviewed for
correctness.” McKelvey v. Hamilton, 2009 UT App 126, ¶ 17, 211
P.3d 390. “A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong
legal standard or when its decision to admit or exclude evidence

3. Yusuf raises additional claims, all of which concern the district
court’s handling of the video. We need not reach the merits of
these additional claims, however, because our conclusion that the
video was inadmissible is dispositive.

20240190-CA 8 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

is beyond the limits of reasonability.” State v. Rallison, 2023 UT
App 34, ¶ 7, 528 P.3d 1235 (quotation simplified).

ANALYSIS

I. Admitting the Video into Evidence

¶24 The district court denied Yusuf’s motion in limine to
exclude the video as hearsay on two grounds. First, the court
ruled that the video was not hearsay and was admissible as “a
prior consistent statement” pursuant to rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the
Utah Rules of Evidence. Second, the court ruled that the motion
was “untimely.” Yusuf contends both rulings were in error.

¶25 As to the district court’s first stated ground for denying
Yusuf’s motion in limine—that the video was admissible as “a
prior consistent statement”—the State concedes that the court’s
ruling was infirm. “Rule 801(d)(1)(B) permits the introduction of
a declarant’s consistent out-of-court statements to rebut a charge
of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive only when
those statements were made before the charged recent fabrication
or improper influence or motive.” State v. Bujan, 2008 UT 47, ¶ 8,
190 P.3d 1255 (quotation simplified). But here, Yusuf did not make
any claim of recent fabrication or improper influence on Wife. The
court therefore committed legal error in concluding that the video
was admissible on this basis. 4

4. The State suggests that the district court could have admitted
the video as “not hearsay” because the video was being offered to
show Wife’s physical condition after the crime and the layout of
the house. But this suggestion is belied by the fact that neither
purported reason depends on the audio of the video, which was
the basis for Yusuf’s hearsay objection. Indeed, Yusuf expressly
(continued…)

20240190-CA 9 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

¶26 Turning next to the district court’s alternative basis for
denying Yusuf’s motion in limine—that the motion was
“untimely”—we conclude that the court abused its discretion in
denying the motion on this ground.

¶27 The district court’s pretrial scheduling order set September
15, 2023, as the deadline for filing any motions in limine. Yusuf
did not file any motions in limine by this deadline. However, on
November 7, immediately before opening statements, Yusuf
moved to exclude the video. After listening to arguments and
ruling on the merits, the court noted that Yusuf’s motion was also
“untimely.” On the facts of this case, this ruling was “beyond the
limits of reasonability.” State v. Rallison, 2023 UT App 34, ¶ 7, 528
P.3d 1235 (quotation simplified).

¶28 “Trial courts have broad discretion to manage their
dockets and set firm deadlines for motion practice.” State v.
Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10, ¶ 48, 345 P.3d 1168 (quotation simplified).
Rule 12(f) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure “provides that
a defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s deadline
constitutes a waiver of the unraised issue, although the district
court may allow relief from such waiver for good cause shown.”
State v. Bergeson, 2010 UT App 281, ¶ 3, 241 P.3d 777. “[T]he
district court has considerable discretion to determine whether a
litigant has demonstrated good cause to file a motion after a
deadline is missed.” Id. ¶ 7. However, once a court excuses a
defendant’s waiver by entertaining an untimely motion on the

indicated that he did not object to playing the video for the jury
without audio. Moreover, the layout of the house is immaterial to
the relevant issue, which is who was the perpetrator in the assault.
Neither party contested what the room looked like or where the
altercation occurred, nor do these details bear on either party’s
version of events.

20240190-CA 10 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

merits, the court cannot then deny the motion as untimely. See id.
¶¶ 7–8.

¶29 In this case, the district court did exactly that. Before
raising his untimely motion in limine, Yusuf’s counsel asked the
court how it would like to handle the motion. The court indicated
that it wanted to consider the motion before trial, rather than
dealing with an objection during trial when the video was
introduced. Thereafter, the State reminded the court that Yusuf’s
motion was untimely pursuant to the pretrial scheduling order, to
which the court responded that it was aware and that it wanted
to consider “the substance” of the arguments. Because the court
was well aware that Yusuf’s motion was untimely yet nonetheless
elected to consider the motion on its merits rather than summarily
dismissing it on that basis, the court abused its discretion in
subsequently denying the motion to exclude on timeliness
grounds.

¶30 For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude the district court
abused its discretion in admitting the video into evidence.

II. Harm

¶31 Having concluded that the district court improperly
admitted the video into evidence, we next consider whether this
error harmed Yusuf. See State v. Fahina, 2017 UT App 111, ¶ 28,
400 P.3d 1177 (“An evidentiary error cannot result in reversible
error unless the error is harmful.” (quotation simplified)). “An
error is harmful if, absent the error, there is a reasonable
likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the defendant or our
confidence in the verdict is undermined.” State v. Cegers, 2019 UT
App 54, ¶ 32, 440 P.3d 924 (quotation simplified). “When
determining whether an alleged error was harmful, we consider
such factors as the importance of the relevant [evidence], whether
the [evidence] was cumulative, and the overall strength of the
prosecution’s case. The more evidence supporting the verdict, the

20240190-CA 11 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

less likely there was harmful error.” Fahina, 2017 UT App 111, ¶ 29
(quotation simplified).

¶32 Here, the evidence of Yusuf’s guilt was inconclusive at
best. The only physical evidence admitted at trial was the
photographs of Wife’s alleged injuries. While the State argued in
closing that Wife’s appearance—including her “disheveled” hair,
red cheeks, “cut” nose, and “scratche[d]” body parts—supported
Wife’s version of events, Yusuf argued the exact opposite. In
particular, Yusuf asserted that these alleged minor injuries were
not consistent with the “very egregious attack” that Wife had
described, and he further noted that the lack of visible bruising in
the photographs supported his account that he did not kick or
punch Wife in her back and kidneys. And while one of the more
troubling aspects of Wife’s account involved her claim that Yusuf
wielded a knife during the altercation, that knife was never found,
and the only cut on Wife’s body—the small one on the bridge of
her nose—was not caused by a knife.

¶33 Moreover, there was no eyewitness testimony from anyone
who was present during the incident. Although three children
observed the incident, none were called as witnesses at trial, and
apparently they were not interviewed at all. And while Officer
and Detective both testified at trial, neither was present during
the incident, and therefore neither had independent knowledge
of what went on. Given the lack of physical evidence and
eyewitness testimony, this case was essentially a credibility
contest between Yusuf and Wife. And given that Yusuf and Wife
both testified to a physical altercation that night, the sole dispute
at trial was whether the events unfolded in the manner articulated
by Yusuf or by Wife.

¶34 In cases such as this, where there is very limited
corroborating physical evidence or eyewitness testimony, Utah
appellate courts have found prejudice where inadmissible
evidence bolstered the account of one witness in a credibility

20240190-CA 12 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

contest. See, e.g., State v. Plazola, 2023 UT App 161, ¶ 31, 542 P.3d
559 (concluding that the wrongful admission of a victim’s prior
statements was harmful where, among other things, there was no
physical evidence or eyewitness testimony supporting the alleged
victims’ accounts); State v. Bujan, 2006 UT App 322, ¶¶ 31–32, 142
P.3d 581 (concluding that the admission of hearsay testimony was
prejudicial where the “testimony provided the only corroboration
of [the victim’s] alleged rape”), aff’d, 2008 UT 47, 190 P.3d 1255.
We reach the same conclusion here. Allowing the jury to view the
video during trial worked to bolster Wife’s in-court testimony
because Wife’s account in the video was essentially the same as
her live testimony, albeit the statements in the video were not
relayed through an interpreter. 5

¶35 And even more than that, this problem was then
compounded by allowing the video into the jury room during
deliberations. “The video recording is the functional equivalent of

5. The State contends that any error in admitting the video was
harmless and therefore not grounds for reversal because Wife’s
statements to Officer in the video “were merely cumulative of her
testimony at trial.” In support of this argument, the State cites a
number of cases holding that the admission of improper
testimony is harmless where the “testimony was merely
cumulative to that already testified to.” (Quoting State v. Thomas,
777 P.2d 445, 450 (Utah 1989).) Here, however, the video was not
merely cumulative of Wife’s trial testimony. Although Wife’s
story itself may have been consistent between the two accounts,
the video offered details that were not part of her trial testimony,
such as Wife reenacting the assault on one of her young sons while
describing it in clear, understandable English, rather than through
an interpreter. Because this detail offers something “new or
additional to the evidentiary picture,” the video is not “merely
cumulative” testimony. State v. Flores, 2024 UT App 195, ¶ 31, 562
P.3d 1203 (quotation simplified).

20240190-CA 13 2025 UT App 189
State v. Yusuf

a live witness, and can be particularly persuasive.” State v. Cruz,
2016 UT App 234, ¶ 39, 387 P.3d 618 (quotation simplified).
Providing the jury unfettered access to the video during
deliberations unduly emphasized Wife’s account and was
“tantamount to having [Wife] testify a second time.” See id.
(quotation simplified). 6

CONCLUSION

¶36 The district court improperly admitted the video into
evidence. The court abused its discretion in concluding that the
video was admissible as a prior consistent statement and in ruling
that Yusuf’s motion to exclude the video was untimely. Because
this error harmed Yusuf, we vacate his convictions and remand
the matter for a new trial.

6. Although there is no way to definitively know whether the jury
viewed the video during deliberations, the jury did inquire about
the video. As this court recently recognized, juror questions can
indicate that certain “evidence was an important part of the trial.”
State v. Gourdin, 2024 UT App 74, ¶ 92, 549 P.3d 685, cert. granted,
564 P.3d 958 (Utah Jan. 29, 2025) (No. 20240871).

20240190-CA 14 2025 UT App 189