427 P.3d 1286
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Anthony Soto was tried for aggravated sexual assault; during trial the jury was escorted to a nonpublic, court-employee elevator for lunch.
- A uniformed highway patrol officer was in the elevator and made comments such as “looks like a jury, do you want me to tell you how this ends?”
- A court IT technician then entered and made remarks that jurors recalled using the word “guilty” or similar (e.g., “You can already tell he’s guilty,” “Just say he’s guilty”).
- The bailiff reported the comments to the trial judge; the court interviewed jurors individually outside the presence of parties; most jurors said they heard some remark but insisted it did not affect their impartiality.
- Soto moved for a mistrial; the trial court denied the motion but gave a curative instruction explaining the officer and IT technician were court personnel with no connection to the case and had been joking.
- The jury convicted Soto; on appeal the Utah Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding Soto’s right to an impartial jury was violated.
Issues
| Issue | Soto's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurors’ unauthorized contact with court personnel triggered a rebuttable presumption of prejudice | Contacts with court personnel (highway patrol officer and IT tech) in a nonpublic elevator triggered the presumption because remarks concerned guilt | The presumption applies only to contacts with trial participants, not unrelated court personnel; jurors’ assurances plus curative instruction suffice | Presumption applies to court personnel generally; comments here (explicitly about guilt) triggered the presumption and it was not rebutted; new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Allen, 108 P.3d 730 (Utah 2005) (discusses rebuttable presumption for unauthorized juror contacts and distinguishes contacts with third parties)
- State v. Pike, 712 P.2d 277 (Utah 1986) (establishes rebuttable presumption of prejudice for unauthorized contacts between jurors and witnesses/attorneys/court personnel)
- State v. Erickson, 749 P.2d 620 (Utah 1988) (juror’s denial of influence insufficient to rebut presumption)
- State v. Anderson, 237 P. 941 (Utah 1925) (verdicts must be "above suspicion" and unauthorized juror contacts undermine impartiality)
- Logan City v. Carlsen, 799 P.2d 224 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (brief bailiff remarks on sentencing triggered rebuttable presumption due to sensitive subject matter)