When must Utah courts grant a new trial based on juror misconduct? State v. Millett Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about juror misconduct and when it requires a new trial in State v. Millett. The case provides crucial guidance for attorneys handling criminal appeals involving potential juror bias.

Background and Facts

Millett was charged with sodomy on a child and aggravated sexual abuse of a child. During voir dire, prospective jurors were asked broad questions about their ability to serve impartially and whether they had concerns about sitting on a trial “of this crime or this nature.” One juror, Mr. Smith, did not disclose that he regularly monitored sex offender registries and may have recognized Millett’s name from such a registry. During deliberations, Smith informed other jurors that he thought he recognized the defendant’s name from a sex offender registry, prompting the court to give curative instructions.

Key Legal Issues

The court applied the McDonough test to determine whether juror misconduct warranted a new trial. This two-pronged test requires: (1) that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and (2) that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court emphasized that honesty in voir dire is determined from an objective perspective, not the juror’s subjective intent. Even if Juror Smith forgot about seeing Millett’s name on the registry, his failure to disclose this information constituted a dishonest answer because he possessed the information at the time of voir dire. The court found that Smith’s uncertainty about whether it was specifically Millett’s name he had seen would not have saved him from dismissal for cause, given his admitted paranoia about sex offenders and his regular monitoring of registries.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the importance of thorough voir dire questioning in sensitive cases. Attorneys should ask specific questions about jurors’ familiarity with sex offender registries, particularly in sex offense cases. The ruling reinforces that curative instructions cannot always remedy the prejudice caused by juror misconduct, especially when the undisclosed information directly relates to the charges. Trial courts are encouraged to “err on the side of dismissing questionable jurors” rather than attempting rehabilitation through admonition.