Opinion ID: 1215982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: scope of appellate review in death penalty cases

Text: The State responds to a number of defendant's claims of reversible error by urging this Court not to consider or rule on such claims because they were inadequately preserved at trial. We decline to adopt that approach and instruct the State to hereafter brief all issues on their merits in death penalty cases. A general rule of appellate review in criminal cases in Utah is that a contemporaneous objection or some form of specific preservation of claims of error must be made a part of the trial court record before an appellate court will review such claim on appeal. [2] As early as 1931, however, this Court recognized an exception to the general rule governing the scope of appellate review in criminal cases where the death penalty was imposed. In State v. Stenback , [3] this Court reviewed errors not objected to at trial but complained of on appeal. [4] Similarly, in State v. Cobo, [5] this Court noticed an error assigned on appeal which counsel for the defendant had failed to take exception to at trial. [6] While this Court continues to review such cases pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-206(2) (1978) [7] and § 76-3-207(4) (Supp. 1987), [8] we do not abrogate a defendant's obligation or assume the role of an advocate by researching all applicable law and searching the entire record for each and every indication of possible or potential error. To do so would result in an impossible and inappropriate burden on this Court. Nevertheless, because of the serious and permanent nature of the penalty imposed in such cases, there needs to continue to be a death penalty exception to the contemporaneous objection rule. [9] Accordingly, this Court has customarily considered assignments of error which were not preserved at trial but were raised and briefed for the first time on appeal. In this regard, we have in the last several years discussed the death penalty appellate scope of review in four decisions: State v. Pierre, [10] State v. Codianna, [11] State v. Wood, [12] and State v. Norton, [13] Therein, while this Court did not assume the responsibility of reviewing the entire record searching for nonassigned error, we considered, reviewed, and analyzed arguments raised for the first time on appeal. [14] Also, in Wood, this Court stated: On direct appeal in capital cases, it is the established rule that this Court will review an error, even though no proper objection was made at trial and even though the error was not raised on appeal, if the error was manifest and prejudicial. [15] Neither Wood nor its progenitors support the contention that this Court will review the entire record for error, whether or not preserved at trial or assigned on appeal. [16] Rather, they uphold the correct and well-established proposition that, notwithstanding our rule in death penalty cases that we review all errors raised on appeal (whether or not objected to at trial or initially assigned as error), [17] we have the sua sponte prerogative in such cases to notice, consider, and correct manifest and prejudicial error which is not objected to at trial or assigned on appeal, but is palpably apparent on the face of the record. [18] Not only is such standard in keeping with controlling statutory and case law, but it also furthers the policy of safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial in a death penalty case by permitting review of the proceedings below even in the absence of compliance with procedural technicalities. Therefore, pursuant to the above analysis and rationale, this Court continues to uphold the established rule in death penalty cases as follows: This Court will review errors raised and briefed on appeal in death penalty cases, even though no proper objection was made at trial, but will reverse a conviction based upon such errors only if they meet the manifest and prejudicial error standard. [19] In addition, this Court has the power to notice manifest (palpable) error apparent in the record and correct a conviction based upon the same if the error is prejudicial, even though such error is not objected to at trial or assigned on appeal. [20] This formulation best supports the past practices of this Court, as well as our continuing responsibility to insure that the sentence of death meets the concerns of Furman v. Georgia. [21]