Opinion ID: 2576322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: cruz's attacks on the jury instructions

Text: ¶ 15 Cruz argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court's jury instructions were constitutionally infirm. Specifically, Cruz argues that the reasonable doubt instructions fell short of the standard we enunciated in Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219. He also argues that the trial court erred in failing to reread its preliminary jury instructions at the close of the evidence. [1] We address each argument in turn.
¶ 16 We first address Cruz's argument that the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions fell short of the Robertson standard and were therefore improper. Generally, [w]hether a jury instruction correctly states the law presents a question of law which we review for correctness. State v. S.H., 2002 UT 118, ¶ 11, 62 P.3d 444. Cruz admits, however, that he never objected to the substance of the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions. That omission would normally render the instructions reviewable for plain error, or manifest injustice, rather than for correctness. State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54, 70 P.3d 111; see also State v. Casey, 2003 UT 55, ¶ 40, 82 P.3d 1106 ([I]n most circumstances the term `manifest injustice' is synonymous with the `plain error' standard . . . . (internal quotations omitted)). To establish plain error, Cruz would be required to 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. Id. at ¶ 41 (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 17 Erroneous reasonable doubt instructions, however, give rise to structural errors, Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281-82, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), which are different than garden-variety trial errors, see Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1, 7 (Colo.2001). Structural errors are flaws in the `framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.' State v. Russell, 917 P.2d 557, 560 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)). Because they affect the very framework of the trial, structural errors are not subject to plain error analysis. Griego, 19 P.3d at 7. Specifically, instead of requiring an aggrieved defendant to prove prejudice, as a plain error analysis requires, a structural error analysis presumes prejudice. State v. Arguelles, 2003 UT 1, ¶ 94 n. 23, 63 P.3d 731. Accordingly, under normal circumstances, we would review the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions for correctness, S.H., 2002 UT 118 at ¶ 11, 62 P.3d 444, and remand for a new trial if we found those instructions erroneous. ¶ 18 The fact that Cruz never objected to the substance of the jury instructions, though, presents an additional wrinkle. In Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that, where the defendant failed to properly object at trial, rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandated plain error review, as described in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), even if the trial court's error was structural in nature. Johnson, 520 U.S. at 464-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544; see United States v. Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal, 355 F.3d 40, 47 n. 5 (1st Cir.2004) (noting that, in Johnson, the Supreme Court assumed that an error was `structural' but nevertheless held that, because the defendant had failed to preserve his objection, `plain error' appellate review applied). [2] Under that rule, a defendant claiming constitutional error who did not object at trial may only argue plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal and thus must prove prejudice, even if the constitutional error claimed on appeal is structural in nature. Other state courts follow a similar rule. See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 597 S.E.2d 724, 745 (2004) (Structural error, no less than other constitutional error, should be preserved at trial.). Here, though, we need not decide whether Cruz's failure to object to the reasonable doubt instructions forecloses his claim of structural error because we conclude that the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions were not erroneousthe first prong in both plain error and structural error analyses. ¶ 19 In Robertson, we recognized that the test for measuring the validity of reasonable doubt instructions, which had been articulated by Justice Stewart in his dissent in State v. Ireland, 773 P.2d 1375, 1381 (Utah 1989) (Stewart, J., dissenting), had been adopted by a majority of this court in State v. Johnson, 774 P.2d 1141, 1147-49 (Utah 1989). Robertson, 932 P.2d at 1232. Under that test, reasonable doubt instructions were required to meet the following three requirements: First, the instruction should specifically state that the State's proof must obviate all reasonable doubt. Second, the instruction should not state that a reasonable doubt is one which would govern or control a person in the more weighty affairs of life, as such an instruction tends to trivialize the decision of whether to convict. Third, it is inappropriate to instruct that a reasonable doubt is not merely a possibility, although it is permissible to instruct that a fanciful or wholly speculative possibility ought not to defeat proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Cruz contends that instructions fifteen through eighteenthe trial court's reasonable doubt instructionsran afoul of the first Robertson requirement in that they failed to affirmatively state that the State's proof must obviate all reasonable doubt. ¶ 20 The State invites us to reject the Robertson test in favor of the standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994). In Victor, the Court stated that so long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof. Rather, taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly convey the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury. Id. at 5, 114 S.Ct. 1239 (alteration in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Under Victor, reasonable doubt instructions are unconstitutional if they allow `a reasonable juror . . . [to] interpret[ ] the instruction to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required by the Due Process Clause.' Id. at 6, 114 S.Ct. 1239 (quoting Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 41, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 n. 4, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991)). Conversely, so long as the reasonable doubt instructions, taken as a whole, . . . correctly convey[ ] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury, they pass constitutional muster. Id. at 22, 112 S.Ct. 475 (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 21 In State v. Reyes, 2005 UT 33, 116 P.3d 305, which was argued the same day as this appeal, the State also urged us to overrule Robertson. We accepted that invitation, and pursuant to our opinion in Reyes, the Robertson test is no longer in force. Id. at ¶¶ 19, 30, 34. We now adhere instead to the Victor test for assessing the validity of reasonable doubt instructions. Simply put, we need only ask whether the instructions, taken as a whole, correctly communicate the principle of reasonable doubt, namely, that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). ¶ 22 We hold that the jury instructions given during Cruz's trial, taken as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jury the concept of reasonable doubt. Those instructions provided a clear and accurate definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They also correctly stated that the prosecution carried the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In sum, they conveyed all of the information required by Victor that the court instruct[] the jury on the necessity that the defendant's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, 511 U.S. at 5, 114 S.Ct. 1239and they did so in a clear and specific manner. Accordingly, the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions were not erroneous and do not warrant a new trial.
¶ 23 Having disposed of Cruz's attack on the substance of the reasonable doubt instructions, we now turn to his claim that the trial court erred by failing to reread its preliminary instructions at the close of the evidence. As was the case with his argument regarding the sufficiency of the reasonable doubt instructions, Cruz failed to preserve this issue. Unlike the challenge to the reasonable doubt instructions, however, this issue does not implicate the structural error doctrine. ¶ 24 In Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718, the United States Supreme Court observed that it had found such errors only in a very limited class of cases. Id. at 468, 117 S.Ct. 1544. It then listed the instances in which it had found structural errors. Id. While the list included erroneous reasonable doubt instructions, it did not include erroneous timing of jury instructions. Id. at 468-69, 117 S.Ct. 1544. Moreover, Cruz has provided us no compelling reason to add to that list. We therefore review the timing of the trial court's jury instructions for plain error, which will require Cruz to prove that the trial court committed an error that was both obvious and prejudicial. See Casey, 2003 UT 55 at ¶ 40, 82 P.3d 1106. ¶ 25 Cruz's argument, as we see it, has both an abstract and a specific component. In the abstract, he argues that reading all of the jury instructions at the close of evidence crystallizes relevant issues and better equips juries to properly resolve cases. In the context of this particular case, Cruz argues that the evidence linking him to the house where the meth lab was seized was hotly contested and that rereading the jury instructions at the close of evidence would have made it clear to the jury that there was insufficient evidence to convict. [3] He asserts that the trial court's failure to reread the instructions was prejudicial and denied him due process. ¶ 26 We also addressed this issue in Reyes. There, we held that Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure 17 and 19 gave trial courts discretion to determine the appropriate instructions to deliver to the jury at the close of evidence. Reyes, 2005 UT 33 at ¶¶ 45, 49. We accordingly declined to require that trial courts reread preliminary instructions at the close of the evidence in every case, recognizing instead that a jury's understanding may be aided by allowing trial courts, in their discretion, to tailor the timing of particular jury instructions to the individual circumstances of a particular case. Id. at ¶¶ 44-45. Requiring a trial court to reread introductory instructions that have become irrelevant by the close of evidence (like those describing jurors' ability to take notes during trial), or even requiring a trial court to reread instructions pertaining to vital rights, id. at ¶¶ 44, 46, when those instructions have recently been given, may dilute [the jury's] attention to critical substantive and procedural guidance present in other instructions, id. at ¶ 44. In short, repeating every instruction at the close of all of the evidence may not necessarily produce better-informed jurors, and our trial courts should have the discretion to decide when rereading instructions will yield diminishing returns. ¶ 27 A trial court's decision not to reread its preliminary instructions at the close of evidence is erroneous only if it reflects an abuse of discretion. We have defined an abuse of discretion generally as a judicial act occurring beyond the range of discretion allowed for the particular act under review, State v. Mead, 2001 UT 58, ¶ 33 n. 4, 27 P.3d 1115, but we have not yet had the opportunity to delineate the applicable range of discretion for the timing of jury instructions. Nevertheless, Reyes is again instructive. ¶ 28 In Reyes, we found that two facts justified the trial court's decision not to reread its preliminary instructions at the close of evidence. First, we noted that less than twenty-four hours separated the trial court's reading of the preliminary instructions from the conclusion of the evidence. Reyes, 2005 UT 33 at ¶ 49. Second, we recognized that the jury was provided with a written copy of every instruction. Id. Given those facts, we concluded that the trial court's decision was well within the bounds of discretion afforded by rule 17 and rule 19 [of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure]. Id. In other words, declining to reread preliminary instructions after a one-day trial in which the jurors were provided with written copies of all the instructions fell within the range of discretion trial courts may exercise in timing their jury instructions. ¶ 29 The facts in this case do not differ materially from those in Reyes. The trial court finished reading the first ten preliminary instructions to the jury at 12:20 p.m. on the first day of trial. Instructions 11 through 18 were read on the second day of trial. By 12:48 p.m. on the third day of trial, the jury had gone to deliberate, having received all the instructions. In other words, the trial court gave all the instructions in just over forty-eight hours. While that is twice as long as the relevant period in Reyes, it is still sufficiently short to allow the jury to retain and recall all the instructions it received throughout the course of the trial. Moreover, as in Reyes, each juror had a written copy of the preliminary instructions. [4] Consequently, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reread all the instructions at the close of evidence. Accordingly, Cruz cannot establish any error, let alone plain error, with regard to the timing of the jury instructions.