Can sleeping jurors invalidate a Utah criminal conviction? State v. Marquina Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed two significant issues in State v. Marquina: whether a sleeping juror can invalidate a criminal conviction and whether accomplice testimony alone can support a conviction for aggravated robbery.

Background and Facts

Marquina was convicted of aggravated robbery after shooting a victim five times during a robbery attempt. During the three-day trial, prosecutors twice reported that a juror appeared to be sleeping. On the second day, a prosecutor noticed a juror “nodding off” and requested a break. On the third day, another prosecutor suggested replacing the potentially sleeping juror with an alternate, noting the juror had been “sleeping through part of the testimony.” Defense counsel responded that he had not noticed any sleeping and suggested the juror might just be “resting his eyes.” The trial court decided to monitor the jury more closely but took no further action.

Key Legal Issues

Marquina raised two issues on appeal: (1) whether his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated by the allegedly sleeping juror, and (2) whether the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, arguing that only accomplice testimony from three co-conspirators placed him at the scene.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court first determined that the invited error doctrine did not apply, as defense counsel did not affirmatively represent that the jury composition was acceptable. However, applying plain error review, the court found no obvious error. Utah case law establishes that handling sleeping jurors is “so peculiarly within the observation, province, and discretion of the trial court” that appellate courts should not interfere except for clear abuse of discretion. The court emphasized that trial courts have wide latitude in responding to sleeping juror reports, and the specific response depends on the case facts.

Regarding sufficiency of evidence, the court noted that Utah law permits convictions based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. The three accomplices consistently placed Marquina at the crime scene, and while their testimony contained some inconsistencies and they had made plea deals, credibility determinations are exclusively for the jury.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that trial judges have broad discretion in managing jury issues during trial. Defense attorneys should consider making affirmative requests for voir dire or juror replacement when sleeping concerns arise, rather than remaining silent, as courts may view silence as strategic choice. The ruling also confirms that accomplice testimony, even from witnesses with credibility issues, can independently support criminal convictions in Utah.