Utah Court of Appeals

Can Utah courts dismiss sleeping jurors without questioning them first? State v. Granados Explained

2019 UT App 158
No. 20180055-CA
September 26, 2019
Affirmed

Summary

Granados was convicted of attempted murder and related charges after a shooting incident followed by a high-speed police chase. He challenged the sufficiency of evidence establishing his identity as the shooter and argued the trial court improperly dismissed a sleeping juror without questioning her.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts must question sleeping jurors before dismissing them in State v. Granados. The case provides important guidance on judicial discretion in managing juror misconduct during trial.

Background and Facts

Joseph Granados was charged with attempted murder, possession of a firearm by a restricted person, and criminal mischief following a shooting incident and subsequent police chase. During the second day of trial, the court observed Juror 16 repeatedly falling asleep during significant portions of the testimony. The court had previously taken breaks specifically because of this juror’s sleeping. When defense counsel objected to dismissing the juror and requested that the court first question her about what she had missed, the trial court declined and replaced her with an alternate juror.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Rule 17(g) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure requires trial courts to question sleeping jurors before dismissing them as disqualified. The rule permits replacement of jurors who become “ill, disabled or disqualified during trial” but does not specify procedural requirements for making disqualification determinations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that trial courts have considerable discretion in determining how to handle sleeping jurors. The court emphasized that there is “no hard-and-fast rule” governing sleeping juror situations and “no template trial courts must follow.” Here, both the judge and court staff directly observed the juror sleeping over two days during significant testimony. The court reasoned that questioning the juror about her perception of what she missed was unnecessary when the court had directly observed her sleeping and missing substantial portions of trial.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah trial courts possess broad discretion in managing juror disqualification issues. Practitioners should recognize that courts may dismiss sleeping jurors based on their own observations without conducting additional inquiry. However, courts should document their observations of sleeping jurors to support any dismissal decision. The case also demonstrates the importance of preserving objections to juror dismissals, even though appellate review remains highly deferential to trial court discretion in this area.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Granados

Citation

2019 UT App 158

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20180055-CA

Date Decided

September 26, 2019

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s identity as the shooter, and the trial court did not violate Rule 17(g) by dismissing a sleeping juror without questioning her first.

Standard of Review

Substantial deference for sufficiency of evidence claims, reviewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict; considerable discretion for trial court’s handling of sleeping juror issues

Practice Tip

When challenging sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, focus on the totality of evidence rather than individual pieces, as Utah courts review the cumulative ‘mosaic’ of evidence supporting the verdict.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Fisher v. Davidhizar

    August 18, 2011

    When parties litigate fraud claims throughout a case without objection to inadequate pleadings, Rule 15(b) requires the trial court to treat the claims as if properly pleaded.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    State v. Schofield

    December 27, 2002

    The juvenile court lacks jurisdiction over defendants who were minors when they committed crimes but were over 21 years old when criminal proceedings commenced.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
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.