Utah Court of Appeals
Can jury tampering involving one juror justify a venue change? Gunn Hill Dairy v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Explained
Summary
Dairy farm owners sought to change venue from Juab County to Utah County after a mistrial was declared when one juror was subjected to family pressure to vote in favor of the power plant defendant. The trial court initially granted the venue change but later vacated that order and denied the motion, finding that the jury tampering was confined to one juror and did not demonstrate community-wide bias.
Analysis
In Gunn Hill Dairy v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether jury tampering affecting a single juror constitutes sufficient grounds for changing venue in a complex civil case involving dairy farms and a power plant.
Background and Facts
The case involved dairy farm owners suing the operators of the Intermountain Power Plant. After the case was moved from Millard County to adjacent Juab County due to the power plant’s economic influence, a lengthy trial began in 2013. During trial, one juror (Juror 9) was subjected to pressure from family members who told her that a verdict against the power plant would threaten local jobs. The trial court declared a mistrial based on this jury tampering. The dairy farms then sought to change venue again, this time to Utah County, arguing that the jury tampering demonstrated community-wide bias.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the trial court properly applied the legal standard for venue change under Utah Code Section 78B-3-309(2), which allows venue change “when there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county.” The court also had to determine whether isolated jury tampering affecting one juror demonstrated broader community bias.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the venue change motion, reviewing for abuse of discretion. The court distinguished between isolated jury tampering and systemic community bias, finding that pressure on one juror from her family members did not establish that an impartial jury could not be empaneled. The court noted that jury selection had proceeded smoothly initially, requiring only one day despite setting aside two days for the process. The appellate court rejected arguments that the mistrial declaration contradicted findings about jury impartiality, explaining that the mistrial was declared due to improper family communications during trial, not pre-existing bias.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that practitioners seeking venue changes must present evidence of broader community prejudice rather than relying on isolated incidents. The concurring opinion notably stated that while the judges personally would have granted the venue change, the deferential abuse of discretion standard required affirmance, demonstrating how standards of review significantly impact appellate outcomes.
Case Details
Case Name
Gunn Hill Dairy v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Citation
2015 UT App 261
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140907-CA
Date Decided
October 29, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to change venue when the court finds that jury tampering affecting one specific juror does not establish community-wide bias preventing an impartial jury from being impaneled.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for trial court’s ruling on motion to change venue
Practice Tip
When seeking venue change after mistrial, distinguish between isolated jury tampering and systemic community bias, and present evidence of broader prejudice rather than relying solely on one juror’s experience.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.