When should courts grant change of venue motions after trial? Butterfield v. Sevier Valley Hospital Explained

In Butterfield v. Sevier Valley Hospital, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the standard for reviewing change of venue motions after trial, establishing that the focus shifts from community characteristics to actual jury impartiality.

Background and Facts

The Butterfield family sued Sevier Valley Hospital for medical malpractice after their daughter suffered permanent impairment during birth. They filed suit in Sevier County, where the hospital serves as the county’s only medical facility and one of fourteen major employers in a community of fewer than 20,000 residents. Before trial, plaintiffs moved for change of venue, arguing that an impartial jury could not be impaneled due to the hospital’s prominence and the likelihood that potential jurors would need the hospital’s services. The trial court denied the motion, and after a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict for defendants.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was what standard applies when reviewing a post-trial change of venue motion. Plaintiffs argued for application of the four-part test from State v. James, which examines community demographics. Defendants contended that the determinative question was whether the case was actually tried by a fair and impartial jury.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that when reviewing post-trial venue challenges, courts must focus on whether the case was tried by an impartial jury rather than examining community characteristics. The court distinguished pre-trial venue motions, where courts must predict whether a fair jury can be selected, from post-trial challenges where the actual jury’s impartiality can be evaluated. Additionally, the court applied the invited error doctrine, finding that plaintiffs waived their venue objections by passing the jury for cause after voir dire without challenging any seated jurors.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of aggressive voir dire and for-cause challenges during jury selection. Practitioners cannot rely solely on venue motions when concerned about jury bias—they must actively challenge problematic jurors or risk waiving their objections. The court’s analysis also suggests that venue shopping by choosing forums with predictable jury pool issues may limit a party’s ability to later complain about those same issues.