Opinion ID: 2514227
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Error Should Have Been Obvious to the Trial Court

Text: ¶ 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.