Can Utah trial courts replace jurors who cannot hear testimony with alternates? State v. Gollaher Explained

In State v. Gollaher, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed how trial courts should handle jurors who cannot adequately hear witness testimony and whether defective jury instructions can be cured through oral corrections during trial.

Background and Facts

Gollaher was charged with four counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child involving two eleven-year-old girls. The trial was plagued with acoustic problems, as the courtroom lacked proper amplification and the victims were soft-spoken. During deliberations, two jurors informed the court they could not hear the victims’ testimony. The trial court questioned these jurors, confirmed they had not adequately heard crucial testimony, and replaced them with alternate jurors. Additionally, during closing arguments, the prosecutor incorrectly told the jury it could “pick or choose” which incidents to convict on without unanimous agreement. The court immediately corrected this misstatement with an oral instruction requiring unanimity on specific instances for each count.

Key Legal Issues

The appeal raised three main issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial motion and replacing incapacitated jurors with alternates; (2) whether the written jury instructions adequately informed the jury of the constitutional unanimity requirement; and (3) whether the court erred in permitting testimony from a prior victim instead of accepting defendant’s offered stipulation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. Regarding juror incapacity, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard and found the trial court’s actions reasonable. The court noted that trial judges have “wide discretion” in responding to potentially incapacitated jurors, and the general inquiries into the reconstituted jury’s capacity were sufficient. On the unanimity instructions, while the court agreed the written instructions were deficient, it found the trial court’s immediate oral correction during closing arguments adequately cured the problem. However, the court noted the trial court erred by not incorporating the oral instruction into the final written instructions as required by Rule 19(c), though this error was harmless given the prominence and clarity of the oral instruction.

Practice Implications

This case provides important guidance on managing courtroom logistics and jury issues. When acoustic problems arise, practitioners should consider requesting specific inquiries about hearing difficulties rather than accepting general capacity questions. The decision also emphasizes the importance of ensuring all oral instructions are properly incorporated into final written jury instructions per Rule 19(c). For unanimity requirements in multiple-acts cases, the instructions must clearly require unanimous agreement on specific incidents for each count charged.