Salt Lake City v. Almansor, 325 P.3d 847

Almansor was convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery on three grounds and appeals on voir dire, witness non-appearance, and verdict coercion.
Juror 10, who later served as foreperson, was not further questioned about bias; defense did not request follow-up or removal.
Almansor did not subpoena or secure the hostile witness’s appearance, and did not request a continuance.
Court proceeded to trial after learning of the missing witness; defense assent was given to proceed.
Jury was deadlocked; court considered options and polled jurors after hearing counsel’s input.
Court ultimately affirmed the conviction, finding no plain error or coercion and that Almansor invited any error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court committed plain error in voir dire of Juror 10	Almansor argues juror bias was inadequately explored	Almansor failed to preserve bias; defense did not request further questioning	No plain error; responses not unequivocal bias; no preservation error.
Whether proceeding to trial after witness absence was error	Witness absence harmed defense and required continuance	Defense failed to request continuance; no preserved error; no prejudice shown	No reversible error; no demonstrated prejudice.
Whether jury verdict was coerced by the court’s handling of deadlock	Court coerced verdict by pressuring deliberations	Defendants invited error; court’s handling not coercive	Not coercive; totality of circumstances do not show coercion; conviction affirmed.

Turner v. University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics, 2013 UT 52 (Utah 2013) (preservation rule for juror bias; cure-or-waive rule replaced)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain error requires prejudice)
State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49 (Utah 2005) (plain error analysis in trial court proceedings)
State v. King, 2006 UT 8 (Utah 2006) (preservation concerns in voir dire)
State v. Griffiths, 752 P.2d 879 (Utah 1988) (continuance necessity and preservation)
State v. Creviston, 646 P.2d 750 (Utah 1982) (testimony materiality and admissibility required for continuance)
State v. Curtis, 2013 UT App 287 (Utah 2013) (requirements to justify remand for more facts about uncalled witness)
State v. Dalton, 2014 UT App 68 (Utah 2014) (Allen instruction not coercive when phrasing and context appropriate)
State v. Ginter, 2018 UT App 92 (Utah 2018) (coercion indicators in jury instructions)
Hooks v. Workman, 606 F.3d 715 (10th Cir. 2010) (Allen charge concept; non-coercive adaptation)