Can improper references in closing argument warrant reversal in Utah? Boyle v. Christensen Explained

In Boyle v. Christensen, the Utah Supreme Court addressed when improper closing argument references justify reversing a jury verdict, providing important guidance for trial attorneys on preserving objections and the boundaries of closing argument advocacy.

Background and Facts

Mr. Boyle was struck by defendant’s truck while walking in a crosswalk, sustaining back injuries requiring surgery. Though defendant admitted liability, the case proceeded to trial on damages. Boyle sought $458,724 but received only $62,500. During closing argument, defendant’s counsel improperly referenced the notorious McDonald’s coffee case, suggesting both cases involved excessive damage requests through per diem analysis. Boyle’s counsel objected that the reference was prejudicial and not in evidence, but the trial court overruled the objection.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court considered three issues: (1) whether Boyle preserved his voir dire challenge for appeal, (2) whether the McDonald’s coffee case reference warranted reversal, and (3) whether Mrs. Boyle’s loss of consortium claim was properly dismissed under Utah Code section 30-2-11.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed that Boyle failed to preserve his voir dire challenge because he never objected to inadequate questioning during jury selection, instead affirmatively approving the jury composition. However, the court found the McDonald’s coffee case reference was improper and prejudicial. The reference appealed to jury passions rather than evidence, misrepresented legal concepts, and involved an irrelevant case with unique cultural significance symbolizing “frivolous lawsuits.” Applying the reasonable likelihood standard, the court concluded the reference probably influenced the verdict unfavorably to Boyle, warranting reversal and remand for new trial.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that trial attorneys must affirmatively object to inadequate voir dire questioning during jury selection to preserve appellate review. Merely submitting proposed questions beforehand is insufficient. For closing arguments, while attorneys have “considerable latitude” to discuss evidence and reasonable inferences, references to irrelevant high-profile cases that appeal to jury prejudices cross the line. The decision also clarifies that Utah Code section 30-2-11’s loss of consortium requirements include examples rather than an exhaustive list of qualifying injuries.