Utah Supreme Court
Must Utah defendants object to biased jurors during voir dire to preserve appellate review? State v. King Explained
Summary
King was convicted of attempted sexual abuse after the trial court failed to individually question two jurors who had indicated experience with abuse. The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court failed to ensure an impartial jury. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, finding King failed to preserve his objection and could not establish plain error.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court in State v. King addressed a fundamental question about preservation requirements during jury selection. When a defendant fails to object to potentially biased jurors during voir dire, can they later challenge the jury composition on appeal?
Background and Facts
King was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child. During jury selection, two prospective jurors indicated they or close family members had been victims of abuse. While the trial court intended to individually question all such jurors, it inadvertently failed to question these two. Neither defense nor prosecution counsel pointed out this omission. King’s counsel affirmatively passed the jury for cause, and the two unquestioned jurors were empaneled. King was ultimately convicted of attempted sexual abuse.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether preservation of error rules apply to jury selection challenges. The court of appeals had held that the trial court’s duty to investigate juror bias was independent of counsel’s actions, exempting jury selection from normal preservation requirements. The Utah Supreme Court disagreed.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court firmly established that jury selection is subject to preservation rules. The court reasoned that the adversarial system depends on counsel’s vigilance in detecting bias, particularly given trial courts’ unfamiliarity with case specifics at voir dire’s outset. Under plain error review, King needed to show the trial court’s error was obvious and harmful. The court held that while the jurors’ responses might have supported removal for cause, they were not “so strong or unequivocal as to inevitably taint the trial process” as required under State v. Litherland.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that practitioners cannot remain silent during jury selection and later claim error on appeal. Defense counsel must actively challenge questionable jurors and request additional questioning. The court emphasized that trial courts should still liberally grant for-cause challenges when properly raised, but will not intervene sua sponte unless bias is unmistakable.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. King
Citation
2006 UT 3
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20040727
Date Decided
January 13, 2006
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A defendant who fails to object to jurors during voir dire must demonstrate plain error to challenge the jury composition on appeal, and the trial court does not abuse its discretion by failing to sua sponte remove jurors unless their bias is so strong or unequivocal as to inevitably taint the trial process.
Standard of Review
Correctness (reviewing court of appeals decision); plain error (reviewing trial court’s failure to preserve objection)
Practice Tip
Always object to potentially biased jurors during voir dire and request additional questioning rather than relying on appellate review, as plain error is difficult to establish.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.