State v. Gollaher, 474 P.3d 1018

Background

In 2012 Gollaher was charged with four counts of first‑degree aggravated sexual abuse of two 11‑year‑old girls; the information did not tie counts to particular incidents. Trial occurred in 2016; Gollaher represented himself with standby counsel.
The trial featured recurring acoustic problems: victims were soft‑spoken, the witness microphone mostly recorded rather than amplified, and two jurors later reported they could not hear key testimony from the victims.
During deliberations the jury requested transcripts and stated that two jurors had not heard the girls; the prosecutor proposed recalling the two alternates and replacing the two jurors who reported hearing problems. The court questioned only the two identified jurors, dismissed them, recalled the alternates (after confirming they had not discussed the case), and conducted a general, non‑specific inquiry of the reconstituted jury about any disability to fully and fairly consider the evidence.
The written elements instructions did not link each charged count to a specific incident; during closing the prosecutor misstated the law on unanimity, and the court orally corrected the jury—requiring unanimous agreement on a specific instance for each count—but did not incorporate that oral statement into the final written instructions as required by rule 19(c).
The State presented evidence of a 1996 child‑abuse conviction by calling the prior victim (SCH) to testify despite Gollaher’s offer to stipulate to the conviction; on appeal Gollaher argued SCH’s live testimony was unfairly prejudicial, but he did not preserve a Rule 403 objection at trial.
The jury convicted on all four counts; the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gollaher)	Held
1. Mistrial / juror incapacity after hearing problems	Court reasonably investigated: questioned the two identified jurors, dismissed those who could not hear, vetted alternates, and conducted general inquiry of reconstituted jury	Court abused discretion by not conducting a fuller inquiry into all jurors' ability to hear and by failing to ask the reconstituted jury specific hearing questions; mistrial required	No abuse of discretion; replacement and general inquiry were reasonable and denial of mistrial affirmed
2. Jury unanimity instructions	Written instructions plus the court’s oral correction cured any deficiency; constitutional unanimity requirement satisfied	Written instructions failed to require jurors to unanimously identify a specific act per count; error required relief	Written instructions were inadequate but the court’s oral unanimity instruction cured the constitutional defect; failure to include that oral instruction in the final written instructions violated rule 19(c) but was harmless error
3. Admission of prior‑victim testimony instead of stipulation	Prosecution may reject stipulation and present contextual evidence; trial court permitted admissible prior‑conviction testimony	Gollaher offered a stipulation; live testimony of the prior victim was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 and should have been excluded	Issue not preserved: Gollaher’s trial objection focused on scope of testimony (Rule 404(c)), not Rule 403 prejudice; appellate review denied

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wach, 24 P.3d 948 (Utah 2001) (standard for reviewing denial of a mistrial)
State v. Marquina, 437 P.3d 628 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (trial court discretion in handling potentially incapacitated jurors)
State v. Hummel, 393 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (unanimous‑verdict requirement as to a specific crime)
State v. Saunders, 992 P.2d 951 (Utah 1999) (illustration of non‑unanimous verdict problems when acts are not specified)
State v. Alires, 455 P.3d 636 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (need to link counts to acts or instruct jury to agree on specific acts)
State v. Case, 467 P.3d 893 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (same unanimity principles for multiple‑acts prosecutions)
State v. Florez, 777 P.2d 452 (Utah 1989) (a party may not foreclose the opponent’s offer of proof by stipulation)
State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (prosecution’s discretion to reject stipulations)
State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (trial judge best placed to assess probative vs. prejudicial effect of prior‑misconduct evidence)
State v. Hutchings, 285 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2012) (jurors apply commonsense understanding to instructions)