Butterfield v. SEVIER VALLEY HOSP.
246 P.3d 120
Utah Ct. App.2010Background
- Kylie Butterfield, born July 2000 at Sevier Valley Hospital, required resuscitation; subsequent transfer to Primary Children's Medical Center left her with permanent impairment.
- In November 2002, the Butterfields sued Sevier Valley Hospital and IHC Health Services, claiming negligent resuscitation caused Kylie’s condition; Defendants argued stroke or other cause.
- October 2006, Plaintiffs moved for change of venue due to concerns about an impartial jury in Sevier County; motion denied by the trial court.
- March 2008, a pool of 100 potential jurors was drawn; questionnaires collected relationships with witnesses/parties; the court reserved numerous objections for trial.
- Trial occurred in April 2008; a renewed motion for change of venue was filed days before trial; no written response and no ruling prior to trial; voir dire reduced to eight seated jurors and three alternates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-trial venue review standard | James factors should govern pretrial feel of community bias. | Post-trial standard is whether the case was tried by a fair and impartial jury. | Post-trial standard is whether the case was tried by a fair and impartial jury. |
| Whether the case was tried by an impartial jury in Sevier County | Most jurors had personal connections to the hospital or witnesses, creating bias. | Connections were attenuated and voir dire did not show bias; jurors were impartial. | Yes, the case was tried by an impartial jury. |
| Invited error in change-of-venue challenge | Plaintiffs passed for cause and cannot be held for inviting error; they preserved issues via questionnaire objections. | Invited-error doctrine applies; passing for cause constitutes invitation of error. | Plaintiffs invited any error by passing the jury for cause; affirming denial of change of venue. |
| Abuse of discretion in denying change of venue post-trial | The panel was tainted by community ties; venue should have shifted. | Voir dire and screening sufficiently protected fairness; no abuse of discretion. | No abuse; trial court properly denied change of venue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Widdison, 2001 UT 60 (Utah) (post-trial impartiality focus for venue challenges)
- Lafferty v. State, 2007 UT 73 (Utah) (post-trial voir dire record controls impartiality analysis)
- State v. Stubbs, 2005 UT 65 (Utah) (pretrial factors and voir dire relevance to bias)
- State v. James, 767 P.2d 549 (Utah 1989) (James factors for pretrial venue in criminal cases)
- City of Grantsville v. Redevelopment Agency of Tooele City, 2010 UT 38 (Utah) (mere conjecture about impartiality insufficient to overturn venue ruling)
- State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4 (Utah) (invited error doctrine applied to voir dire challenges)
- State v. Shipp, 2005 UT 35 (Utah) (appearance of impropriety; voir dire as tool to uncover bias)
- State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86 (Utah) (acquaintance with party/witness insufficient to show bias)
- Chamblee v. Stocks, 344 P.2d 980 (Utah 1959) (voir dire effectiveness in identifying impartial jurors)