Does passing a jury panel for cause waive venue challenges on appeal? State v. MacNeill Explained

In State v. MacNeill, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant can challenge a trial court’s denial of a change of venue motion after passing the jury panel for cause. The case demonstrates the intersection of invited error doctrine and venue challenges in Utah criminal appeals.

Background and Facts

MacNeill was charged with forcible sexual abuse of his adult daughter following his wife’s death. Given the extensive media coverage of his concurrent murder trial, MacNeill moved for a change of venue, arguing that pervasive publicity made a fair trial impossible in Utah County. The trial court denied the motion. During voir dire, MacNeill’s counsel questioned prospective jurors about their knowledge of the murder case, and after exercising peremptory challenges, defense counsel passed the eight-member jury panel for cause.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three primary issues: whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the venue motion, whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prejudicial testimony, and whether speedy trial violations occurred. The venue challenge presented the novel question of whether passing a jury for cause waives appellate review of venue denials.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that invited error doctrine barred MacNeill’s venue challenge. Under established precedent, when a defendant passes a jury panel for cause, he “thereby acknowledges that the jury is impartial” and forfeits any claim of juror bias. The court emphasized that once a jury is impaneled, the determinative question is whether the seated jurors were actually impartial, not whether pretrial publicity created a likelihood of bias. The court also rejected MacNeill’s ineffective assistance claim, finding that counsel’s strategic decision to use prejudicial testimony about the murder conviction to attack the victim’s credibility had a conceivable tactical basis.

Practice Implications

This decision has significant implications for venue practice in Utah. Defense attorneys must carefully consider whether to accept a jury panel if they intend to preserve venue challenges for appeal. The ruling clarifies that strategic trial decisions, even those allowing prejudicial testimony, receive strong deference under Strickland analysis when they serve a legitimate tactical purpose. The case also reinforces the law-of-the-case doctrine, as the court refused to revisit a previously decided speedy trial claim absent new evidence directly related to that issue.