Opinion ID: 6227007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What Was Said

Text: ¶62 The second step in the improper-contacts inquiry is what was communicated to the juror. The more the communication is directly relevant to the trial, the more likely it is to trigger the presumption of prejudice. This is, perhaps, most true when a speaker opines on the defendant‘s guilt. Conversely, communications unrelated to the trial are less likely to trigger the presumption. ¶63 Again, our case law helps to illustrate these parameters. We begin with communications directly related to the proceedings. In Carlsen, the court of appeals applied the presumption when a bailiff answered a juror‘s questions that ―touched on the extremely sensitive issue of sentencing.‖ 799 P.2d at 226. And in State v. Larocco, that court addressed a brief conversation regarding the credibility of police officers, which between a juror and ―a minor witness whose testimony was uncontroverted.‖ 742 P.2d 89, 95–96 (Utah Ct. App. 1987), rev’d on other grounds, 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990). The court considered ―the content of the conversation‖ (the credibility of police officers) to be the ―critical issue‖ and accordingly applied the presumption of prejudice. Id. at 96. ¶64 In the federal realm, the United States Supreme Court applied the presumption of prejudice when a bailiff told jurors: ―Oh that wicked fellow (petitioner), he is guilty,‖ and ―[i]f there is anything wrong (in finding petitioner guilty) the Supreme Court will correct it.‖ Parker, 385 U.S. at 363–65. And in Godoy, the Ninth Circuit presumed prejudice when a juror communicated with an external ―judge friend,‖ in part because the judge explained procedural details of the case. 861 F.3d at 964. The court explained: ―Procedural guidance on questions such as why certain evidence was excluded, or how the jury was to determine guilt, could certainly influence the jury‘s decision.‖ Id. at 969–70. These cases show how outside juror contacts discussing substantive, or even procedural, matters of the case are more likely to trigger the presumption of prejudice. ¶65 On the other end of the spectrum, brief and innocent contacts unrelated to the case are unlikely to trigger the presumption. See Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 70 (not applying the presumption when the ―judge's communication with the jury did not involve any substantive issues; instead, the interaction was brief and dealt with the timing of the jury‘s dismissal for the day‖); State v. Durand, 569 P.2d 1107, 1109 (Utah 1977) (holding that the 22 Cite as: 2022 UT 9 Opinion of the Court rebuttable presumption of prejudice was not triggered when jurors briefly had coffee at the sheriff‘s office in the presence of several officer-witnesses, as it was a ―minor‖ showing of impropriety); Garcia, 355 P.2d at 59 (not presuming prejudice when a juror approached the judge with a question regarding the trial and the judge ―acted properly and did not attempt to solve the juror's problems, but merely told him he would ask counsel about it‖); State v. Day, 815 P.2d 1345, 1349–50 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (holding that the presumption was not triggered when, by order of the judge, an officer–witness and a bailiff drove a juror one or two miles to reunite him with the other jurors and no conversation took place); State v. Jonas, 793 P.2d 902, 908–10 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (holding that the presumption did not arise when a bailiff let jurors know why another juror was excused because ―[h]is brief contact concerning something tangential to the trial itself did not give rise to any appearance of impropriety‖). ¶66 Putting who and what together, we see how these two prongs of our balancing test interact. At one extreme, communications with jurors by individuals having little or no connection with the courts or criminal justice system not regarding the case at hand will not trigger the presumption of prejudice. At the other extreme, communications by important or authoritative individuals associated with the courts or criminal justice system regarding a sensitive matter of the trial such as the defendant‘s guilt or a key witness‘s credibility will almost invariably trigger the presumption. The remaining scenarios will fall somewhere in between and require the trial court to engage in a careful, factintensive balancing of who said what. However, the court will still need to consider any special circumstances of the communication, which we now discuss.