Court Opinion

ID: 9792782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:36:23.441787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:08.789010
License: Public Domain

BENCH, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. There were numerous errors and irregularities in this case. *618During jury selection, the trial judge made statements that manifested at least the appearance of bias (and perhaps actual bias) when he suggested defendants waive the jury and he would find them guilty. At trial, the judge commented on the evidence. The judge excluded evidence relating to the violent character of Officer Lundgren and the peaceful character of one of the defendants. In closing argument, the judge limited defense references to the Rodney King case,1 the notorious California case involving police brutality, after the prosecution had brought it up. The judge did not allow defendant’s proposed jury instruction on self defense, when the proposed instruction was taken directly from the Utah Code as it was interpreted by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568 (Utah 1991).
The main opinion concedes that some errors were committed, but concludes they were harmless. When considered separately, the errors and irregularities may not require reversal. When considered together, however, they persuasively demonstrate that these defendants were denied a fair trial. See Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp., 801 P.2d 920, 928 (Utah 1990) (“While no one error by itself perhaps mandates reversal, the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that defendants were able to present to the jury their theory of the case and that a fair trial was had.”).
I believe there is a substantial likelihood of a different outcome had the errors in this case not been made. See State v. Jacques, 924 P.2d 898, 902 (Utah App.1996). I would therefore reverse the convictions and remand the case for a new trial.

. See United States v. Koon, 833 F.Supp. 769 (C.D.Cal.1993), off d in part and vacated in part, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir.1994), offd in part and reversed in part, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996).