State v. Fletcher, 353 P.3d 1273

In February 2011 a confidential informant (CI) conducted two controlled buys of marijuana from Eugene Fletcher in locations within 1,000 feet of a church; purchases were monitored by the Cache‑Rich Drug Task Force via radio transmitters and visual surveillance.
After each buy the CI handed the purchased marijuana to agents and was searched with no other contraband found.
Fletcher was charged with two counts of distributing marijuana in a drug‑free zone (second‑degree felonies) and convicted by a jury.
Defense raised three issues on appeal: (1) insufficiency of the evidence because the Detective’s testimony was inherently improbable, (2) admission of the Detective’s testimony violated Utah Rule of Evidence 602 (lack of personal knowledge), and (3) trial court abused discretion by seating a juror with connections to law enforcement/prosecutors and a son who had been a confidential informant.
The trial court denied a for‑cause challenge to the juror after extended voir dire; multiple agents and the CI corroborated the buys at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence / "inherently improbable" testimony	State: testimony and corroborating evidence support verdict	Fletcher: Detective’s inconsistent statements made testimony inherently improbable and insufficient	Affirmed — inconsistencies were minor; other direct and circumstantial evidence supported verdict
Rule 602 / personal knowledge of witness testimony	State: Detective had opportunity and capacity to perceive events	Fletcher: Detective admitted memory was jogged by other agents, showing lack of personal knowledge	Affirmed — Eldredge standard satisfied; Detective had opportunity and capacity; discussions merely refreshed memory
Juror challenge for cause	State: voir dire showed juror could be impartial despite associations	Fletcher: juror’s ties to prosecutors, an agent, and her son’s CI history created bias	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; juror’s answers showed willingness to be fair; contacts were attenuated

State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (defines "inherently improbable" — requires material inconsistencies and no other corroborating evidence)
State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah 1989) (Rule 602 requires opportunity and capacity to perceive events)
State v. Rowley, 189 P.3d 109 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (standard for reversing jury verdict for insufficiency of evidence)
State v. Cobb, 774 P.2d 1123 (Utah 1989) (acquaintance with prosecutor does not automatically require juror dismissal)
State v. Wach, 24 P.3d 948 (Utah 2001) (court observation that excusing a questionable juror is an easy remedy to avoid bias)