Can Utah criminal defendants challenge unpreserved trial errors on appeal? State v. Isom Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Isom demonstrates the critical importance of preservation of error and the limited circumstances under which unpreserved claims can succeed on appeal.

Background and Facts

Defendant Jace Isom was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse and rape of his girlfriend’s five-year-old daughter. During trial, the court implemented special procedures to help the child testify, including placing a whiteboard barrier between Isom and the child, and later allowing closed-circuit television testimony. The prosecutor also used leading questions during the child’s examination and introduced evidence of Isom’s other sexual conduct through a friend’s testimony.

Key Legal Issues

Isom raised seven claims on appeal, including due process violations for lack of arraignment, insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, Confrontation Clause violations, improper leading questions, and admission of character evidence under Rule 404(b). Most significantly, Isom failed to preserve these claims at trial, requiring him to establish either exceptional circumstances or plain error.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court systematically rejected each claim. For unpreserved issues, Isom failed to establish exceptional circumstances, which are “reserved for truly exceptional situations” and “rare procedural anomalies.” His plain error arguments failed because the alleged errors were not sufficiently obvious to require sua sponte intervention by the trial court. Regarding prosecutorial statements asking jurors to “walk in [the child’s] shoes,” the court distinguished between improper appeals to victim sympathy versus legitimate arguments about witness credibility.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores that Utah appellate courts strictly enforce preservation requirements. Claims raised for the first time on appeal face significant hurdles under both the exceptional circumstances and plain error doctrines. Defense counsel must make specific, timely objections at trial to preserve issues for appeal. The court’s analysis of ineffective assistance of counsel claims also shows that strategic decisions, even controversial ones, receive strong deference when reasonable explanations exist.