Utah Court of Appeals

Does a juror's professional relationship with a prosecutor require a new trial? State v. Riddle Explained

2019 UT App 150
No. 20180599-CA
September 12, 2019
Affirmed

Summary

Riddle challenged his convictions for distribution of controlled substances after discovering that a juror was the personal accountant of the Kane County Attorney, who did not participate in the trial. The trial court denied his motion to set aside the jury verdict, finding no evidence of actual or implied bias.

Analysis

In State v. Riddle, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether an undisclosed professional relationship between a juror and a prosecutor requires a new trial, even when the prosecutor did not participate in the case.

Background and Facts
Three days after Riddle’s jury trial concluded, defense counsel discovered that one of the jurors was the personal accountant for Kane County Attorney Robert Van Dyke. Importantly, Van Dyke had not participated in Riddle’s trial, which was handled by a deputy county attorney. During voir dire, jurors were asked about relationships with trial counsel, parties, and witnesses, but not about relationships with other prosecutors in the office.

Key Legal Issues
Riddle moved to set aside the jury verdict, arguing the undisclosed relationship violated his right to a fair and impartial jury. He acknowledged no evidence of actual bias but contended the relationship created an appearance of impropriety requiring reversal under theories of implied bias.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard to review the trial court’s denial of the new trial motion. The court emphasized that Utah law requires proof of actual bias to warrant a new trial based on juror partiality. While acknowledging the questionable viability of implied bias doctrine after Smith v. Phillips, the court found even that standard was not met. The professional accountant-client relationship, without more, did not suggest the juror would be unable to render an impartial verdict, particularly in a small community where such relationships are common.

Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that mere professional relationships between jurors and prosecutorial offices, standing alone, are insufficient to demonstrate bias requiring reversal. However, practitioners should ensure voir dire questions encompass relationships with all members of the prosecuting office, not just trial counsel, to avoid post-trial complications.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Riddle

Citation

2019 UT App 150

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20180599-CA

Date Decided

September 12, 2019

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A professional relationship between a juror and a prosecutor not involved in the case does not require a new trial absent evidence of actual bias.

Standard of Review

Abuse of discretion for rulings on motions for new trial

Practice Tip

When conducting voir dire, specifically ask potential jurors about relationships with all members of the prosecuting office, not just trial counsel.

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

    U.P.C., Inc. v. R.O.A. General, Inc.

    October 21, 1999

    A tenant is not required to remove improvements made with the landlord’s consent or under authority of the lease absent an express requirement in the lease, and inquiry notice of an unrecorded lease arises when circumstances should put a reasonable person on guard to require further inquiry.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Property Rights
    • |
    • Tort Law and Negligence
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    McBride v. Huard

    March 2, 2004

    A medical malpractice complaint dismissed for failure to comply with prelitigation procedures under the Health Care Malpractice Act still qualifies as a commenced action under Utah Rule 3(a) for purposes of the savings statute under Utah Code section 78-12-40.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • 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.