415 P.3d 604
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Carl Mack Courtney was charged with distribution of a controlled substance; jury selection proceeded in district court.
- During voir dire, a prospective juror (Juror Five) volunteered that, from her law-enforcement work with the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force, she had “affiliations with him,” referring to interactions with Defendant.
- The court and counsel discussed the comment at sidebar, excused Juror Five (citing a different reason publicly), then empaneled and swore an eight-person jury from the remaining venire.
- Defense counsel did not move for a mistrial or otherwise timely object before the jury was sworn; he later moved for mistrial outside the jury’s presence and the court denied it as untimely.
- Trial proceeded and Defendant was convicted; on appeal (new counsel), Defendant argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely move for mistrial to cure a tainted venire.
- The Utah Court of Appeals held counsel’s performance was deficient, that the failure likely prejudiced Defendant, vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Courtney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was required to move for mistrial before the jury was sworn when a prospective juror’s voir dire comment may have tainted the venire | Counsel reasonably delayed to avoid drawing attention to the remark and because challenges to juror bias target individual jurors under Rule 18 | Counsel had multiple opportunities to move for mistrial/new trial before swearing and failed to protect the right to an impartial jury | Counsel’s omission was deficient; a timely motion could and should have been made before the jury was sworn |
| Whether an objection to the entire venire (mistrial/new trial) was procedurally available before swearing | Rule 18 limits challenges to individual jurors | A Rule 24 motion (new trial) could be made to challenge venire-wide taint at any time in trial process | Court: a venire-wide motion was available pre-swearing under Rule 24 and should have been used |
| Whether counsel’s failure was a legitimate tactical choice | State: delaying avoided magnifying the taint by re-highlighting the remark | Defendant: no conceivable tactical reason; court’s own comments signaled the problem and counsel could have sought a brief private consultation | Court: no valid tactical basis shown; first prong of Strickland satisfied (deficient performance) |
| Whether prejudice resulted from counsel’s deficiency (structural error vs. Strickland prejudice) | State: jurors could have understood the comment innocently or subsequent evidence made it harmless | Defendant: juror’s unsworn law-enforcement remark likely corroborated guilt and tainted venire; a reasonable likelihood of a different result exists | Court: prejudice shown (reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result); vacated conviction and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (defendant’s unforced motion for mistrial does not bar reprosecution under double jeopardy)
- Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609 (6th Cir.) (duty to use voir dire to identify biased jurors)
- Burton v. Zions Cooperative Mercantile Inst., 249 P.2d 514 (Utah 1952) (objections to juror bias should be raised before jury is sworn)
- State v. Duran, 262 P.3d 468 (Utah Ct. App.) (motion for new trial under Rule 24 can be equivalent to mistrial motion)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (structural-error doctrine distinguishing errors that affect trial framework)
- Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630 (9th Cir.) (exposure of venire to intrinsically prejudicial statement can be structural error)