State v. Hauptman
2011 UT App 75
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Hauptman was convicted in Utah of one count of sexual abuse of a child and appeals the conviction.
- He challenges the denial of his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct under the McDonough framework.
- During voir dire, jurors were asked whether pornography would affect their impartiality; no affirmative answers were given.
- A juror later wrote a letter admitting her guilty vote was influenced in part by Hauptman's pornography history.
- Hauptman contends the letter satisfies McDonough’s first prong; the court disagrees and rejects the argument.
- He further argues ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting a lesser-included instruction of sexual battery, and challenges police evidence preservation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the McDonough first prong was met. | Hauptman argues juror honesty failed due to the letter. | State argues no dishonest voir dire answer. | First prong not met; denial affirmed. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting sexual battery instruction. | Hauptman contends inclusion of sexual battery was necessary. | State contends no reasonable basis to instruct on sexual battery. | No ineffective assistance; no duty to instruct. |
| Whether the State's destruction/loss of evidence violated due process. | Hauptman asserts due process was violated due to spoliation. | State contends no bad faith and record was not misused. | No due process violation; no bad faith shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984) (McDonough test for juror misconduct and new trial)
- State v. Thomas, 830 P.2d 243 (Utah 1992) (clarifies McDonough applicability)
- State v. Evans, 2001 UT 22 (Utah) (review standard for appellate decisions on juror issues)
- State v. Redding, 2007 UT App 350 (Utah App. 2007) (postconviction affidavit about jury deliberations; McDonough prong analysis)
- State v. Baker, 671 P.2d 152 (Utah 1983) (included offense test for lesser-included instructions)
- State v. Whittle, 1999 UT 96 (Utah) (ineffective assistance analysis; futility standard)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (bad faith requirement for evidentiary preservation claims)