State v. Doutre
335 P.3d 366
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Doutre was convicted of attempted kidnapping, a first-degree felony.
- The jury view of the sledding site was proposed; concerns about potential prejudice were discussed.
- Doutre voluntarily stated he did not want to attend the jury view; the court encouraged discussion and he ultimately did not attend.
- Detective Buss testified as an expert on footprints and also served as the jury view guide earlier that day.
- Doutre challenged Buss’s expert testimony, noting alleged improper qualifications, lack of notice, and potential credibility bolstering.
- The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel related to Buss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Doutre's right to attend the jury view validly waived and properly handled? | Doutre argues the right was deprived and counsel ineffective. | Doutre contends the court failed to protect his right to attend the view. | Waiver valid; no plain error; counsel not ineffective. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to Buss's expert testimony and related matters? | Buss was unqualified, unnotified, and improperly vouched for witnesses. | Counsel had tactical reasons or could rely on cross-examination to address issues. | Counsel ineffective; prejudice established; remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (1985) (defendant may waive right to be present at certain proceedings)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (invited error doctrine and trial handling considerations)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) (defendant's exclusion from a jury view evaluated in light of record)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 317 S.E.2d 482 (Va. 1984) (irregularities in jury views may affect trier of fact)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (cross-examination to expose defects in expert testimony)
- State v. Clark, 89 P.3d 162 (Utah 2004) (appellate review of trial counsel's evidentiary objections)
- State v. Bluff, 52 P.3d 1210 (Utah 2002) (juror views and the role of the view in trial)
- State v. Hoyt, 806 P.2d 204 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (limitations on bolstering witness credibility)