Opinion ID: 2576322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: cruz's allegation of juror bias

Text: ¶ 30 We now turn to Cruz's allegation of juror bias. As we noted in our recital of the facts, shortly after the beginning of the trial, Cruz, through his attorney, expressed a concern that the jurors had discussed the case with one another in violation of the trial court's instruction. He stated: My concern was[,] it was brought to my attention that a couple of the jurors were conversing with each other in the elevator on the way up, back from lunch, and were discussingyeah, they were speculating as to why they had been picked, and were discussing one of the juror's I believe family, I don't know, mother ora couple family members had been arrested and incarcerated for drugs. The other juror speculated to her, I assume maybe they picked you because they thought you would be sympathetic. She said, I hope they are not counting on that, because I had to endure that, something like that. The other one said, Well, I would be sympathetic, because I didn't really have to deal with the issue. My mother dealt with it. Something to that effect. My concern is they were discussing the case somewhat, looking over the information they had been given, and discussing their personal views on the case. That's my only concern. The Court had ordered them not to discuss the case with each other, talk with each other. (Emphasis added.) ¶ 31 The trial court responded by concluding that the jurors were merely speculating about the reasons why they were not the targets of peremptory challenges and about certain evaluations that the lawyers may have made about them and about the way that they might approach this case. Thereafter, Cruz failed to pursue the matter further. ¶ 32 On appeal, Cruz contends that he properly raised an allegation of juror bias and that the trial court should have investigated that allegation and dismissed the jurors. He asserts that the trial court's failure to do so prejudiced him and warrants a new trial. The State asserts that Cruz never properly alleged juror bias and has accordingly waived that claim on appeal. We agree with the State. ¶ 33 As a general rule, claims not raised before the trial court may not be raised on appeal. State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 11, 10 P.3d 346. A party cannot circumvent that rule by mere[ly] mention[ing] . . . an issue without introducing supporting evidence or relevant legal authority; such a mere mention does not preserve that issue for appeal. State v. Brown, 856 P.2d 358, 361 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (internal quotations omitted). The preservation requirement is based on the premise that, in the interest of orderly procedure, the trial court ought to be given an opportunity to address a claimed error and, if appropriate, correct it. Holgate, 2000 UT 74 at ¶ 11, 10 P.3d 346 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, an objection must at least be raised to a level of consciousness such that the trial [court] can consider it. Brown, 856 P.2d at 361 (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 34 Here, Cruz explicitly stated that his only concern was that the jurors were discussing the case with each other in violation of the court's order to the contrary. The concern he raised had nothing to do with the substance of the jurors' comments to one another or with the degree of bias, if any, those comments reflected. Indeed, Cruz's attorney never even mentioned the word bias. We conclude that Cruz's objection is properly characterized as an objection to the jurors' conversation, not an objection based upon alleged bias. ¶ 35 We acknowledge that the trial court mentioned bias in responding to Cruz's stated concern regarding the jurors' conversation. After concluding that the jurors were simply speculating as to why they had been selected for service, the trial court offered its opinion that nothing about those speculations suggests bias, nor does it suggest that they were improperly discussing the case. Cruz contends that the trial court's statement demonstrates that he raised the issue of bias to a level of consciousness such that the trial [court could] consider it, id. (internal quotations omitted), thereby satisfying the preservation requirement. ¶ 36 We disagree. The fact that the trial court mentioned the term bias in ruling on Cruz's objection regarding the jurors' conversation does not establish that the trial court was actually presented with an objection based on bias. Neither does it establish that the objection, if made at all, was sufficiently explicit to raise the bias issue to a level of consciousness such that the trial [court could] consider it. [5] Id. In fact, the record reflects that Cruz failed to pursue the bias issue even after the court mentioned it gratuitously. Cruz never identified the jurors who were allegedly biased, never requested any investigation into the matter, never asked that the jurors be disqualified, and never presented any pertinent legal argument or authority. In short, Cruz failed to preserve the issue of jury bias in the trial court and therefore cannot raise it on appeal. [6] See id.