Court Opinion

ID: 9541592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:26:59.479981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:52.731894
License: Public Domain

DURHAM, Associate Chief Justice,
concurring in the result:
¶ 12 I concur in the result reached by the majority because I believe that the rule announced in Chess v. Smith, 617 P.2d 341 (Utah 1980), is fundamentally sound.1 However, in light of the State’s argument that we must overrule Chess because it conflicts with the controlling United States Supreme Court interpretation of the federal right to due process, I believe this court should clarify the grounds upon which the rule announced in Chess is based. To this end, I would disclaim any reliance on federal due process jurisprudence, and would instead announce, pursuant to our supervisory power, a state rule consistent with Chess v. Smith, 617 P.2d 341 (Utah 1980).
¶ 13 This court’s supervisory power is an inherent power which has been recognized in many cases. See, e.g., State v. Arguelles, 921 P.2d 439, 442 (Utah 1996) (noting, in ineffective assistance of counsel case, that “pursuant to our inherent supervisory power over the courts, we may presume prejudice in circumstances where it is unnecessary and ill-advised to pursue a case-by-case inquiry to weigh actual prejudice” (internal citations and quotation omitted)); State v. Gordon, 913 P.2d 350, 353 (Utah 1996) (noting, in ineffective assistance of counsel case, that court’s inherent supervisory power over courts is well settled); State v. Carter, 888 P.2d 629, 650 (Utah 1995) (advising, pursuant to inherent supervisory power, that trial courts should be more conservative when making for-cause determinations regarding potential jurors in capital eases); State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393, 407 n. 7 (Utah 1994) (stating that language changes made in other cases to burden of proof instruction were undertaken pursuant to court’s supervisory power over lower courts); State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1266, 1271-72 (Utah 1993) (observing that court has “inherent supervisory authority over all courts of this state” and invoking that authority to establish appropriate standards of review); State v. Brown, 853 P.2d 851, 857 (Utah 1992) (holding, pursuant to court’s inherent supervisory power over courts, that “counsel with concurrent prosecutorial obligations may not be appointed to defend indigent persons”); State v. Wareham, 772 P.2d 960, 965 (Utah 1989) (adopting, pursuant to court’s supervisory power, bifurcated hearing process in simple sexual abuse/aggravated sexual abuse cases); State v. James, 767 P.2d 549, 557 (Utah 1989) (adopting, through exercise of inherent supervisory power over trial courts, bifurcated hearing process to avoid possible prejudice to defendants in first degree murder trials when evidence of prior convictions is introduced); In re Criminal Investigation, 7th District Court No. CS-1, 754 P.2d 633, 653 (Utah 1988) (requiring, by inherent su*4pervisory power over judicial branch, that all investigations made under Subpoena Powers for Aid of Criminal Investigation and Grants of Immunity Act “must be fully documented and such documentation shall be maintained by the district court authorizing the investigation”); State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 499 (Utah 1988) (Zimmerman, J., concurring in the result) (observing that “requiring ... trials [to] proceed in the bifurcated fashion [when evidence of prior convictions will be introduced in first degree murder trials] is entirely within our inherent power to supervise the courts”), overruled in part on other grounds by Menzies, 889 P.2d at 397-98; State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239, 1260 (Utah 1988) (imposing, pursuant to court’s inherent supervisory power, requirements of instructions and written findings on proof of aggravating circumstances in penalty phase of capital case); State ex rel. Clatterbuck, 700 P.2d 1076, 1081 (Utah 1985) (imposing, through exercise of inherent supervisory powers over trial courts, requirement of detailed findings and reasons for certifying juveniles to stand trial as adults). As recently noted, ‘“It is especially appropriate that we exercise that supervisory power to require certain procedures when fundamental values are threatened by other modes of proceeding.’ ” James, 767 P.2d at 557 (quoting Bishop, 753 P.2d at 499 (Zimmerman, J., concurring)).
¶ 14 The question before us here concerns the procedure through which a defendant’s right not to appear at trial in prison clothing should be protected. Both the United States Supreme Court and this court have recognized this right as fundamental. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976) (stating that “the State cannot, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothes”); Chess, 617 P.2d at 344-45 (noting several times that defendant’s right not to appear at trial in prison clothes is a fundamental right or a basic constitutional right). Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for this court to exercise its inherent supervisory power to require certain procedures to protect a defendant’s fundamental right not to appear at trial in prison clothes.
¶ 15 As mentioned previously, the procedure currently in place to protect a defendant’s right not to appear at trial in prison clothes was announced nineteen years ago by this court in Chess, which held that “[i]n a matter of such fundamental importance to the basic fairness of a trial, we hold a trial judge should on his own initiative inquire of a defendant whether he wishes to waive his right not to appear in prison clothes.” 617 P.2d at 345 (footnote omitted). The opinion reflected our concern that two fundamental principles of our justice system might be impaired if a defendant appeared at trial in prison clothes. See id. at 344-45.
¶ 16 First, the court was concerned that a defendant may be presumed by the jury to be guilty merely because the defendant appeared at trial in prison clothes, a result that undermines the fundamental principle that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. See id. To support its concern that defendants may be presumed guilty because they appeared at trial in prison clothes, this court quoted Estelle, with approval, noting:
“Courts have, with few exceptions, determined that an accused should not be compelled to go to trial in prison or jail clothing because of the possible impairment of the presumption so basic to the adversary system.... This is a recognition that the constant reminder of the accused’s condition implicit in such distinctive, identifiable attire may affect a juror’s judgment. The defendant’s clothing is so likely.to be a continuing influence throughout the trial that ... an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible factors coming into play.”
Chess, 617 P.2d at 345 (quoting Estelle, 425 U.S. at 504-05, 96 S.Ct. 1691).
¶ 17 Second, the court was concerned that juries might base their verdicts on prejudice if the defendant appeared at trial in prison clothes, an outcome directly contradicting the fundamental principle “that cases should be decided on the facts, and not on prejudice, by whatever means the prejudice may insinuate itself.” Id. In discussing this fundamental principle, Chess stated that “[a] decent respect for basic fairness and the indignity of *5appearing in a court of law in clothes which mark a defendant, who has not been convicted, as a lawbreaker would suggest” that “the occurrence of a defendant ... standing trial before a-jury in prison clothes should long ago have ceased.” Id. “Indeed, we have numerous rules of evidence that prohibit the introduction of defendant’s past criminal conduct solely to assure that a case will be decided on the facts untainted by past misconduct- • The potential effect on the minds of jurors in attempting to apply the presumption of innocence and the standards requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt to the evidence in a criminal case, require” that eases be decided on facts, not on prejudice. Id.
¶ 18 Finally, we concluded in Chess that “[t]he prejudicial effect that flows from a defendant’s appearing before a jury in identifiable prison garb is not measurable, and it is so potentially prejudicial as to create a substantial risk of fundamental unfairness in a criminal trial.” Id. at 344. Thus, to avoid the risk of fundamental unfairness in criminal trials evidenced by the possibilities that defendants may be presumed guilty and verdicts may be based upon prejudice, we held that trial courts should inquire of defendants appearing at trial in prison clothes whether they have intelligently and consciously waived their right not to so appear. See id. at 345. The State now asks us to change our minds and our rule.
¶ 19 In particular, the State argues that this court should overturn Chess and should instead follow federal procedure, requiring defendants to invoke their right not to appear at trial in prison clothes. Under this procedure, defendants would be required to object (through counsel or personally if counsel fails to raise the point) to trial appearances in prison clothes. Only after defendants have raised an objection would the trial court incur an obligation to- secure the defendant’s right. I am not persuaded that trial courts should have no duty to regulate such an obvious aberration in fair trial procedure. Trial judges are well accustomed to overseeing what goes on in their courtrooms. Any trial judge seeing a defendant brought in wearing prison clothes will immediately be alerted to a problem and will wonder why the circumstance has occurred. It is no significant burden to require that a brief inquiry be made when such an inquiry will resolve all issues with no prejudice to defendants’ trial rights.
¶20 Therefore, like the majority, I reject the State’s suggestion that we overrule Chess. Doing so would unnecessarily impinge upon a defendant’s right not to appear at trial in prison clothes.
¶21 Moreover, I believe that we should use this opportunity to clarify the authority upon which this court bases its protection of a defendant’s right not to appear at trial in prison clothes. Specifically, it should be clear that the rule protecting a defendant’s right not to so appear is premised on our supervisory power, and not tied to federal due process requirements. I would add the observation that this rule is supported by practice and logic. It merely maintains the status quo. Utah’s trial courts have been charged with the duty to protect a defendant’s right not to appear at trial in prison clothes since this court decided Chess in 1980. At no time has it been brought to the attention of this court that this rule has resulted in any burden or problems for the trial courts or the parties. Because the procedure announced in Chess has been implemented without any cognizable burden or problem, I agree with the majority that we should not abandon it.
¶ 22 Moreover, as mentioned earlier, this court strongly desires to insure that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that cases are decided on the facts, not on prejudice. To further these aims, we have adopted many rules of evidence to insure that indicia of guilt are not admitted or present without the defendant’s consent during trial. See, e.g., Utah R. Evid. 404, 408, 410, 609. As is well understood, the wearing of prison clothes by a defendant during trial is highly suggestive of guilt to some observers. No defendant should incur that risk absent an informed and conscious choice.
¶23 Finally, and most importantly, the rule we have followed for nineteen years contributes effectively to the goal of a fair *6trial. Requiring the trial judge to inquire whether a defendant has intelligently and consciously waived the right not to appear at trial in prison clothing provides automatic procedural protection for the right. In contrast, under the procedure advocated by the State, defendants are not afforded automatic protection of their right not to appear at trial in prison clothes, but must themselves shoulder the burden of triggering that protection. Considering the fundamental nature of the right and principles at issue, it is far more sound to provide automatic, rather than contingent, procedural protection, particularly where it is so easily accomplished. This rule, of course, does not mean that a defendant may never appear at trial in prison clothes. Clearly, defendants may choose to so appear for strategic reasons, and may therefore choose to waive their rights. But it should be up to the trial judge, when presented with a defendant in prison clothes, to inquire whether the defendant has in fact chosen to so appear.
¶ 24 In conclusion, although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I think it is important to emphasize that this is a state rule based on our inherent supervisory authority.

. In Chess, we held that "a trial judge should on his own initiative inquire of a defendant whether he wishes to waive his right not to appear in prison clothes so that the record affirmatively shows an intelligent and conscious waiver by the defendant if the defendant chooses to stand trial in prison clothes.” Chess, 617 P.2d at 345.