Utah Court of Appeals
Can inappropriate comments by court personnel warrant a new trial? State v. Soto Explained
Summary
During a lunch break, a highway patrol officer and IT technician made comments about the defendant’s guilt to jurors in a court elevator. The trial court denied defendant’s mistrial motion after each juror said the comments did not affect their impartiality and provided a curative instruction.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Soto, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether inappropriate comments by court personnel to jurors during trial can violate a defendant’s right to an impartial jury, even when the personnel are not directly involved in the case.
Background and Facts
During a lunch break in Soto’s aggravated sexual assault trial, jurors encountered a uniformed highway patrol officer and IT technician in a court elevator. The officer remarked “looks like a jury, do you want me to tell you how this ends?” while the IT technician asked “can you say guilty?” Eight jurors reported hearing variations of comments involving the word “guilty.” The trial court denied Soto’s mistrial motion after each juror claimed the comments did not affect their judgment and provided a curative instruction.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the rebuttable presumption of prejudice applies to inappropriate contact between jurors and court personnel not directly involved in the defendant’s trial. The court also examined whether the State successfully rebutted this presumption through juror denials and curative instructions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the rebuttable presumption of prejudice applies to inappropriate contacts with all court personnel, not just trial participants. The court emphasized that verdicts must remain “above suspicion” and that limiting the presumption to direct trial participants would dilute the right to an impartial jury. The comments here were particularly egregious because they addressed “the most sensitive issue of a criminal case: whether the defendant is guilty.” The court found the State failed to rebut the presumption, noting that juror denials of influence are insufficient and that the curative instruction may have caused more harm than good by highlighting the officers’ authoritative positions.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts take jury integrity seriously, extending protection beyond direct trial participants to all court personnel. Practitioners should recognize that juror assurances of impartiality cannot overcome substantive improper contact, and curative instructions may be inadequate when dealing with comments from authoritative figures about guilt or innocence.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Soto
Citation
2018 UT App 147
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160087-CA
Date Decided
August 9, 2018
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The rebuttable presumption of prejudice applies to inappropriate contacts between jurors and court personnel even when not directly involved in the trial, and comments about guilt by court staff cannot be rebutted by juror denials and curative instructions.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for denial of motion for new trial; correctness for legal standards applied
Practice Tip
When seeking a new trial based on improper jury contact, focus on the substantive nature of the comments rather than relying solely on juror denials of influence, as such denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of prejudice.
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.