Opinion ID: 2514227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: extent of trial participation of the guardian ad litem

Text: ¶ 13 The defendant next claims that the extent of the guardian ad litem's participation in the criminal trial exceeded any statutory authority, and that it implicated his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. Specifically, defendant insists that the trial court erred in permitting the guardian ad litem to sit at counsel table with the prosecutor, to make objections, and to question witnesses during the trial. The State responds that the role played by the guardian ad litem at trial was nearly trivial, involving only three witnesses, and that the guardian ad litem's questions revealed no new evidence. As a result, the State contends that any error associated with the guardian ad litem's role in the criminal trial is without legal consequence and is therefore harmless.
¶ 14 The State initially insists that the defendant should be precluded from presenting on appeal issues relating to the guardian ad litem's participation at trial because they were not raised before the trial court. Defendant counters that he objected to the guardian ad litem's questioning of witnesses at the pretrial conference. However, a transcript of the pretrial conference does not exist. In fact, we cannot identify any evidence in the record indicating that defense counsel preserved this issue for appeal by asking the trial court to rule on it. Nevertheless, claims not raised before the trial court may be raised on appeal where, as the defendant argues here, the trial court committed plain error. Consequently, we review the extent of the guardian ad litem's participation for plain error. ¶ 15 To establish the existence of plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that (i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined. State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208-09 (Utah 1993).

¶ 16 In order to determine whether the trial court erred in permitting the guardian ad litem during the trial to sit at counsel table, make objections, and question witnesses, we look to the sections of the Utah Code governing the role of the guardian ad litem. At the outset, we note that it is universally accepted that the role of a guardian ad litem is to represent the best interests of those not legally competent to represent themselves, primarily children, and that the Utah Code allows a guardian ad litem to be appointed in a variety of proceedings where a child's well-being or legal interests are directly impacted. [3] That said, the role and extent to which a guardian ad litem may participate in these legal proceedings is controlled by the statutory guidelines under which the guardian ad litem is appointed. ¶ 17 In this criminal case, an attorney [4] guardian ad litem was appointed by the district court pursuant to sections 78-7-9, 78-3a-911, and 78-3a-912 of the Utah Code. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-7-9, 78-3a-911, 78-3a-912 (Supp.2000). Two of the sections, 78-3a-911 and 78-3a-912, are not part of the criminal code, but are part of the Juvenile Courts Act. Hence, these two sections were promulgated with juvenile procedures and issues in mind and were meant to apply to the juvenile context. Section 78-7-9, however, is not so limited. ¶ 18 On its own motion, the court appointed the Office of the Guardian Ad Litem to represent the interests of A.G. The record does not indicate what motivated the court to do so. The order, in pertinent part, reads: In the interest of justice, and pursuant to U.C.A. § 78-7-9, in accordance with U.C.A. §§ 78-3a-911 and 912, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the: Office of the Guardian ad Litem, 523 Heritage Blvd., Suite 2, Layton, Utah 84041 is HEREBY APPOINTED to represent the best interests of A.G., the minor alleged victim in this case. The State of Utah is to cooperate in making available to the Office of the Guardian ad Litem all information necessary to protecting and representing A.G.'s interests. Further, the Court grants the Office of the Guardian ad Litem the authority to utilize additional resources available to the Office of the Guardian ad Litem in its representation of A.G.'s interests. (Emphasis added.) ¶ 19 Although the district court's order appointing a guardian ad litem has not been challenged, we take this opportunity to address the decision to appoint a guardian ad litem in a criminal case. The interplay of sections 78-7-9, 78-3a-911, and 78-3a-912 limits when a guardian ad litem may be appointed and the extent of the guardian ad litem's role. ¶ 20 Under section 78-7-9, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem if child abuse, child sexual abuse, or neglect is alleged in any proceeding in any state court, and the appointment must also be in accordance with Sections 78-3a-911 and 78-3a-912 of the Juvenile Court Act. Utah Code Ann. § 78-7-9(1) & (3). ¶ 21 At first glance, by its plain language, the appointment authority of section 78-7-9 appears to limit the appointment of a guardian ad litem to only those cases in which child abuse, child sexual abuse, or neglect is alleged. However, while the terms child abuse and child sexual abuse are the titles of specific criminal violations, neglect is not. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-109 (Supp.2000) (child abuse); Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404.1 (1993) (sexual abuse of a child). It appears obvious that in using these terms, the legislature was referring to those terms as used in the Juvenile Court Act and did not require a specific criminal charge by that name to be alleged. ¶ 22 In this case, defendant was charged with one count of rape in violation of section 76-5-402, one count of forcible sexual abuse in violation of section 76-5-404, and two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a sixteen or seventeen year old, violations of section 76-5-401(2). [5] Because we do not read section 78-7-9 to limit the appointment of a guardian ad litem to only those cases where the specific crimes of child abuse or child sexual abuse have been charged, the district court in this case had the authority to appoint a guardian ad litem. However, as stated above, there is no indication in the record as to what concern motivated the court to do so. Moreover, the role of the guardian ad litem is still circumscribed by the language of sections 78-3a-911 and -912 of the Juvenile Court Act. ¶ 23 We turn now to sections 78-3a-911 and 78-3a-912 to determine how the authority and responsibilities given to the guardian ad litem in the Juvenile Court Act apply in the criminal context. Section 78-3a-911 provides for the creation of the Office of the Guardian Ad Litem Director under the direct supervision of the Judicial Council, the governing body of the state courts. This section enumerates criteria for the hiring and supervision of the director and duties to be performed. Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-911(2) & (3). The Director's duties encompass development, management, and implementation of selection, training, and supervision procedures for guardians ad litem. Id. Section 78-3a-911 contains no grant of authority for a guardian ad litem to participate in any way in a criminal trial, however. ¶ 24 Section 78-3a-912 provides, among other things, for the appointment of a guardian ad litem and lists the duties and responsibilities of a guardian ad litem. Subsection (1) authorizes the Juvenile Court to appoint an attorney guardian ad litem to represent the best interest of a minor involved in any case before the [Juvenile] court, and subsection (2) directs the guardian ad litem to represent the best interests of each minor who may become the subject of a [Juvenile Court] petition alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency, in a case. Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-912(1) & (2); see also § 78-3a-103(1)(g) (Supp.2000) (defining court as the Juvenile Court when read in chapter 3a). ¶ 25 Other subsections of section 78-3a-912 address the funding of the guardians ad litem, provide that guardians ad litem are state employees for purposes of indemnification, protect the records of the guardian ad litem from disclosure, and waive some of the restrictions imposed on attorneys in order to facilitate the parens patriae role of the guardian ad litem. See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-912(6), (7), & (11)(a)-(d). These subsections, although not directly related to the participation of the guardian ad litem in the trial below, suggest the tone and attitude of the legislature in adopting the provisions: Under the supervision of the Judicial Council, a guardian ad litem is an employee of the courts whose role is to protect and act in the best interests of children who are the subjects of abuse, neglect, or dependency. [6] ¶ 26 Subsection (3) of section 78-3a-912 is of more direct concern to our analysis of whether the trial court erred in allowing the guardian ad litem to participate at the level he did in defendant's trial. Subparts (a) through (x) of subsection (3) detail specific duties and responsibilities of the guardians ad litem appointed pursuant to the statute. Only three [7] bear on our inquiry: (3) Each attorney guardian ad litem shall: . . . . (i) file written motions, responses, or objections at all stages of a proceeding when necessary to protect the best interests of a minor; . . . . ( l ) personally attend all court hearings, and participate in all telephone conferences with the court unless the court waives that appearance or participation; . . . . ( o ) present witnesses and exhibits when necessary to protect the best interest of the minor; Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-912. Standing alone, the language of these three subparts would appear to authorize, indeed mandate, the participation of the guardian ad litem in the trial of defendant. However, reading the statute as a whole, giving appropriate consideration to the expressions of purpose and overall scheme of the sections, it becomes clear that no such participation is either intended or authorized. ¶ 27 Section 78-3a-912 describes the duties and responsibilities of the guardian ad litem when appointed to represent the best interests of a child in a proceeding in Juvenile Court. The purpose of such a Juvenile Court proceeding is to alleviate conditions that result in the abuse, neglect, or dependency of the child. The proceedings described relate, without exception, to determining what corrective actions are in the best interests of the child, not what punishment is appropriate for adult perpetrators of actions resulting in abuse, neglect, or dependency. Punishment of the perpetrators, if appropriate, is reserved for the criminal system, not the civil Juvenile Court system. Therefore, the policy behind the guardian ad litem's participation in juvenile proceedings does not apply to the same extent in the context of a criminal trial.
¶ 28 If the guardian ad litem were to have a role of any kind in the prosecution of defendant in the case before us, it would be peripheral, and strictly limited to matters relating specifically to the treatment of the child victim, such as assuring that the victim received notice and opportunity to be present and heard as mandated by the victims' rights statutes. [8] Nothing in the statutory authority for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, or the duties and responsibilities of the Office of the Guardian Ad Litem Director or the individual guardians ad litem under its direction, authorizes the guardian ad litem to act as co-prosecutor, as happened here. ¶ 29 Permitting the guardian ad litem to sit at counsel table was error. To permit the guardian ad litem to sit at counsel table in a criminal trial and act like a second prosecutor, wearing the cloak of authority of an employee of the courts, having been appointed by the trial court to the role, dangerously erodes the defendant's presumption of innocence. The guardian ad litem's role does not extend to this degree of protecting the interests of the child by assisting in the punishment of the alleged perpetrator of the crime against the child victim. Given the consequences of improper interference in the criminal process, namely reversal or retrial, participation in this criminal trial by the guardian ad litem was of no service to the child, or the court. ¶ 30 Allowing the guardian ad litem to sit at counsel table with the prosecution is inconsistent with the independent nature and role of the guardian ad litem. The interests of a child victim are not always the same as the interests of the parties to a criminal case: the defendant and the State. Consequently, because the victim was not an interested party, her court-appointed representative, the guardian ad litem, should not have been permitted to sit at counsel table, either with the State or with defendant. It was error to allow it. ¶ 31 Permitting the guardian ad litem to question witnesses and make objections was also error. Because a guardian ad litem does not represent an interested party in a criminal trial, the guardian ad litem is not permitted to further the interests of either the State or the defendant in a criminal case. Victims' rights legislation entitles victims to, among other things, be notified of criminal or juvenile justice proceedings, and be present and heard at important hearings. See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. § 77-37-3; Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-38-3 & -4. However, the right to be notified and present at trial does not include the right to be heard during the guilt phase of the proceedings. See id. § 77-38-2(5); § 77-38-3; § 77-38-4(1) & (2) (stating that [the Rights of Crime Victims Act] shall not confer any right to the victim of a crime to be heard: (a) at any criminal trial. . . unless called as a witness). In this case, however, the guardian ad litem insisted that he had the right, on behalf of A.G., to object to questions asked by defense counsel, and on more than one occasion, to ask follow-up questions to those of the prosecutor. To the contrary, the guardian ad litem's participation may not include objecting to questions and questioning witnesses in a criminal trial. The role of the guardian ad litem is not to act as an advocate either for the State's position or for the defendant's position in a criminal trial. ¶ 32 Nothing in the statutes under which a guardian ad litem may be appointed by the district court authorizes the guardian ad litem to sit at counsel table with the prosecutor in the criminal action, to object to questions or proceedings during trial, or to question or call witnesses. As the trial court here correctly concluded, there is also no authority for granting the guardian ad litem's request to make opening and closing statements to the jury in the criminal case. The role of the guardian ad litem in the criminal context involving a child victim is as limited as that enjoyed by the child's parent or other legal guardian. [9] ¶ 33 In sum, the circumstances under which an attorney guardian ad litem is appointed are circumscribed by statute, and the role of an attorney guardian ad litem in the litigation process is also limited because of the nature of the duties and responsibilities set forth by these statutes. [10] Consequently, the trial court's allowance of the guardian ad litem to sit at counsel table with the prosecutor, to make objections, and to examine witnesses, was error.
¶ 34 The second factor under the plain error analysis is whether the error should have been obvious to the trial court. State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208-09 (Utah 1993). These errors, permitting the guardian ad litem to sit at counsel table, to make objections, and to question witnesses, should have been obvious to the trial court. ¶ 35 In fact, the record indicates that the court was conscious that the guardian ad litem's desired level of participation was inappropriate. On one occasion, in sustaining an objection to questioning of an expert witness by the guardian ad litem, the trial judge said, addressing the guardian ad litem, You are here as the victim's advocate basically in this case, and there's not going to be two bites of the apple for examination. . . . [S]o you and [the prosecutor] can coordinate that together. I'm not going to have two things going from the same side of the case. Following further colloquy with the guardian ad litem, the trial court again said, I'll tell you what my concern is. My concern is that there shouldn't be any reason that there should be two times prosecution versus one time defense and you and [the prosecutor] can coordinate that. The guardian ad litem responded, [Y]our honor, you indicated that we can coordinate with the prosecutor. I can state to the court that by statute[] we're supposed to be independent and there are times when we are even in opposition to the prosecutor's position. We do not coordinate as being the same case because we-our job as mandated is to be inside. I think we ought to be given an inside rather than having to be coordinated with the prosecutor or the attorney[s] general[]. ¶ 36 The trial court did not permit the guardian ad litem to give an opening statement or summation. Indeed, the trial court explained that to permit the guardian ad litem to become too involved at trial would invite error. At the end of trial, in ruling on the guardian ad litem's request to make a closing statement, the trial court correctly described the law, saying: [T]here's nothing [in] any statute that I know of that allows the guardian ad litem to come in here and basically redo the prosecution. Your statute, 78-3a-912, as far as I can read, does not apply to a first degree criminal rape case. [11] ¶ 37 As a result, the second element of the plain error analysis is satisfied: The error should have been obvious to the trial court.
¶ 38 The third factor under the plain error analysis is whether the defendant was harmed or prejudiced at trial. In other words, absent the error, whether there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant; or, phrased differently, whether our confidence in the verdict is undermined. State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208-09 (Utah 1993). We are satisfied that the team prosecution appearance presented by allowing the guardian ad litem to sit with the prosecutor, make objections, question witnesses, and generally act as a co-prosecutor and advocate for the conviction of the defendant was prejudicial to defendant under the Dunn plain error standard. Our confidence in the verdict of the jury is thereby undermined. As such, the failure of the defendant to object on the record to the participation of the guardian ad litem is not fatal to his appeal. Allowing the guardian ad litem to participate as he did in this case was error. Moreover, it should have been obvious to the trial court, and it was harmful, in that, absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the defendant.