When do inadequate jury unanimity instructions require reversal in Utah? State v. Case Explained

In State v. Case, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court’s failure to provide adequate jury unanimity instructions requires reversal of a criminal conviction. The case involved seven counts of sexual exploitation of a minor based on 37 images of child pornography found on defendant’s devices.

Background and Facts

Case sold a computer hard drive containing child pornography to a buyer who later discovered the illegal images. Law enforcement traced the drive back to Case through family photos on the device. A subsequent search of Case’s laptop revealed additional child pornography images, many featuring feet and pantyhose consistent with Case’s admitted sexual fetishes. The state charged Case with seven counts but did not link each count to a specific image among the 37 images that constituted child pornography.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on which specific criminal acts supported each count. Case also challenged the admission of legal erotica evidence under Rule 404(b) and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the trial court erred in its unanimity instructions. When multiple criminal acts could support a single charge, the jury must unanimously agree on which specific act constitutes the charged crime. However, the court applied the three-prong plain error test and found Case failed to demonstrate prejudice—the third prong requiring a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome.

The court reasoned that even with proper unanimity instructions, the jury would likely have selected the seven most graphic images among the 37 available, resulting in the same convictions. The fundamental dispute was not which images constituted child pornography (Case was willing to stipulate to this), but whether Case was responsible for possessing them.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that jury unanimity errors, while recognized as plain error, will not result in reversal unless the defendant can show prejudice. When challenging evidentiary rulings, practitioners must ensure complete records are provided on appeal—the court will presume missing transcripts support the trial court’s decision. The case also illustrates how prosecutorial election or specific jury instructions become crucial when multiple acts could support individual charges in multi-count cases.