State v. Martinez, which noted that the prosecutor’s comment about the defendant being “predisposed to commit these crimes” was “clearly improper.” 2001 UT App 90, ¶ 11 n. 2. ¶44 Bradley contends that his ease is “strikingly similar” to Martinez. We disagree. In Bradley’s case, the State did not explicitly express that the defendant was predisposed to commit sexual abuse. The State only noted that the testimony of J.B. “must” be considered. J.B.’s testimony was properly admitted evidence and the jury was actually instructed by the trial court to “weigh[ ] all the available evidence” to determine Bradley’s guilt on the charges. The State merely urged the jury to consider evidence already determined admissible in a pretrial hearing. Cf. State v. Saunders, 1999 UT 59, ¶ 25, 992 P.2d 951 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the State acted properly and in
holding that a statement that the jurors were not required to reach a verdict but should try to do so was not coercive holding that intentionally calling to jurors attention matters that they should not consider in reaching a verdict is clear misconduct holding that a typographical error on the jury verdict form was harmless error because the trial court polled the jurors after the mistake was discovered to make sure that they understood the verdict that they had entered holding that jurors do not need expert testimony on matters of common knowledge holding that one jurors exposure to extraneous information concerning prior criminal acts of the defendant which she did not disclose to the other jurors before they rendered a verdict did not merit a new trial