How should trial courts poll jurors about prejudicial publicity? State v. Daughton Explained

In State v. Daughton, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the critical question of how trial courts should handle potentially prejudicial publicity that emerges during jury proceedings. This case provides essential guidance for practitioners dealing with media coverage that threatens to compromise jury impartiality.

Background and Facts

Daughton faced charges for sexual offenses against a child committed in 2002. After an eight-member jury was selected but before being sworn, the trial court excluded certain evidence pursuant to the Utah Rules of Evidence. However, the following day, a local newspaper published an article containing information specifically excluded by the court’s order. The trial court individually questioned each juror in chambers about exposure to the article, with only one juror acknowledging she had read parts of the newspaper that morning but denying she read anything pertaining to the case.

Key Legal Issues

The central issues were whether the trial court adequately polled the jury regarding inherently prejudicial publicity, whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request more thorough questioning, and whether the sentencing violated ex post facto constitutional protections.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, finding the trial court’s polling adequate under State v. Clark. The court emphasized that when publicity is potentially prejudicial, the trial court must question jurors about their exposure and understanding. Here, despite initial confusion in one juror’s responses, the trial court directly asked whether she had “read anything pertaining to this case,” and she unequivocally responded “absolutely not.” The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of the juror’s credibility and truthfulness. However, the court vacated the sentence, finding it violated ex post facto protections by applying a 2008 sentencing statute to crimes committed in 2002.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the importance of thorough but targeted questioning when prejudicial publicity occurs during trial. Courts should question jurors individually in chambers with counsel present and ask direct, specific questions about exposure to case-related material rather than general inquiries about newspaper reading. Defense counsel must carefully consider whether to request additional questioning, as excessive polling may actually prejudice the jury by creating suspicion.