440 P.3d 734
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Roberto Serrano was tried on multiple counts including aggravated sexual abuse, rape of a child, and sodomy; the State played recorded Children’s Justice Center (CJC) interviews at trial and the children also testified live.
- Defense emphasized inconsistencies between the CJC interview recordings and the children’s trial testimony and presented expert witnesses challenging memory/reliability and physical-injury expectations.
- During deliberations the jury (without notifying the court) twice asked the bailiff for a transcript of one child’s trial testimony; the bailiff could not produce a transcript and instead provided an audio recording of that child’s trial testimony to the jury.
- The jury shortly thereafter returned guilty verdicts on all counts and then reported to the parties and court that they had listened to the recorded trial testimony during deliberations.
- The district court granted Serrano’s motion for a new trial, concluding the bailiff’s provision of recorded trial testimony violated court rules and deprived Serrano of a fair trial; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Serrano's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unauthorized jury contact with court personnel (bailiff) triggered a rebuttable presumption of prejudice | Contact with bailiff did not amount to impermissible contact warranting presumption; rule contemplates jurors asking bailiff for assistance | Bailiff’s provision of recorded trial testimony without court/counsel involvement was unauthorized and grounds for presumption | No presumption; jury–bailiff exchange was authorized in form, so presumption of prejudice does not apply |
| Whether jurors’ access to an audio recording of a witness’s trial testimony during deliberations prejudiced Serrano’s right to a fair trial | Any contact was brief and did not likely affect verdict; jury already had access to other recorded testimonial evidence (CJC interviews) | The selective, unsupervised access to only the trial testimony unduly emphasized that testimony and prejudiced defense strategy | Serrano met burden to show prejudice despite erroneous burden-shifting by district court; new trial affirmed |
| Proper allocation of burden when unauthorized contact occurs | State argued district court erred in applying presumption and shifting burden to State | Serrano relied on presumption and argued the contact prejudiced him | Court held presumption was inapplicable; burden remained with Serrano to show prejudice, but district court’s ultimate prejudice finding was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether prior receipt of recorded CJC interviews justified jury’s unfettered access to trial testimony | State argued jury’s access to CJC recordings justified access to trial testimony upon request | Serrano argued access to one form of recorded testimony does not allow unfettered access to other recorded trial testimony | Court rejected State’s position; access to some recordings does not open the door to unfettered access to recorded trial testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pike, 712 P.2d 277 (Utah 1985) (rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises from unauthorized contact between jurors and court participants beyond incidental contact)
- State v. Allen, 108 P.3d 730 (Utah 2005) (prosecution must prove unauthorized contact did not influence jury when presumption applies)
- State v. Cruz, 387 P.3d 618 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (recorded testimonial evidence is persuasive and juries should not have unfettered access to audio/video statements during deliberations)
- State v. Hines, 307 P.2d 887 (Utah 1957) (if replaying testimony court must ensure selection/use will not give undue weight to evidence)