Utah Supreme Court
Can prejudice be presumed when counsel fails to adequately question potentially biased jurors? State v. King Explained
Summary
King was convicted of sexual abuse of a child after his trial counsel failed to ensure that two prospective jurors who disclosed experiences with sexual abuse were individually questioned for bias. The court of appeals reversed, presuming prejudice from the seating of potentially biased jurors under Strickland ineffective assistance analysis.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Gordon King faced charges of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. During jury selection, the trial court identified several prospective jurors who disclosed experiences with sexual abuse. While most were individually questioned, two jurors (No. 2 and No. 18) who indicated they or someone close to them had experienced abuse were inadvertently not questioned further. Defense counsel failed to notice this omission, and both jurors were seated. King was convicted of the lesser included offense of sexual abuse of a child.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented the question of whether prejudice may be presumed under Strickland v. Washington when defense counsel’s deficient performance allows potentially biased jurors to be seated. The Utah Court of Appeals had presumed prejudice, reasoning that the presence of potentially biased jurors warranted reversal without requiring proof of actual bias.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court distinguished between actual bias and potential bias. While courts presume prejudice when an actually biased juror participates in a conviction, the court held this presumption does not extend to potentially biased jurors. The court emphasized that presumptions of prejudice are appropriate only when prejudice is “so likely that case-by-case inquiry into prejudice is not worth the cost.” When both the existence of bias and its effect must be presumed, the likelihood of actual prejudice is insufficient to justify bypassing the defendant’s burden of proof.
Practice Implications
This decision requires practitioners to demonstrate actual prejudice in ineffective assistance claims involving jury selection. The court remanded for a Rule 23B hearing to determine whether the jurors were actually biased. Defense attorneys must ensure thorough voir dire of all prospective jurors who indicate any connection to case subject matter, as preservation failures will require proving actual bias rather than merely potential bias to establish ineffective assistance.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. King
Citation
2008 UT 54
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20060988
Date Decided
August 5, 2008
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Prejudice cannot be presumed in ineffective assistance of counsel claims when counsel fails to adequately probe prospective jurors who exhibit potential bias rather than actual bias.
Standard of Review
Correctness for the legal ruling whether prejudice may be presumed in ineffective assistance of counsel claims
Practice Tip
Preserve jury selection objections at trial and conduct thorough voir dire of all prospective jurors who indicate any connection to the subject matter of the case to avoid ineffective assistance claims.
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.