Does Utah require twelve-person juries for noncapital aggravated murder cases? State v. Robertson Explained

In State v. Robertson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether defendants charged with noncapital aggravated murder are constitutionally entitled to twelve-person juries and examined the standards for waiving the right to be present during voir dire.

Background and Facts

Robertson shot his girlfriend in the head after suspecting an affair, then shot his friend twice when the friend attempted to get up. Both victims died. The State charged Robertson with aggravated murder but elected not to seek the death penalty, making the charges noncapital first degree felonies. Robertson was tried by an eight-person jury after waiving his right to be present during portions of voir dire.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three primary issues: (1) whether noncapital aggravated murder cases require twelve-person juries under the Utah Constitution’s capital case provision; (2) whether Robertson’s waiver of his right to be present at voir dire was knowing and voluntary; and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and whether defense counsel was constitutionally effective.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected Robertson’s plain error challenge to the eight-person jury, explaining that under Utah Code sections 76-5-202(3)(b) and 76-3-207.7, when the State does not seek the death penalty, aggravated murder becomes a noncapital first degree felony not subject to the Utah Constitution’s twelve-person jury requirement for “capital cases.” The court found Robertson’s complex constitutional analysis insufficient to meet the plain error standard because any alleged error would not have been obvious to the trial court.

Regarding the voir dire waiver, the court noted that the trial court twice confirmed Robertson’s desire to waive his presence, with Robertson stating he trusted his attorney. The court distinguished this from waiving the right to counsel, noting that unlike rights requiring detailed colloquy, defendants regularly waive other constitutional rights without extensive inquiry.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that noncapital aggravated murder cases are governed by standard felony procedures, including eight-person juries. For practitioners, the case demonstrates that strategic decisions about client presence during voir dire can be reasonable when based on concerns about juror bias or candor. The court’s emphasis on the obviousness prong of plain error analysis also highlights the importance of preserving constitutional challenges through proper objection at trial rather than relying on appellate plain error review.