How should Utah trial courts handle reports of sleeping jurors? State v. Marquina Explained

In State v. Marquina, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a challenging issue that can arise during any jury trial: what should a trial court do when informed that a juror may be sleeping? While the Court affirmed the conviction, it provided important guidance for future cases involving inattentive jurors.

Background and Facts

Raymond Marquina was convicted of aggravated robbery after shooting a victim five times during an attempted robbery. During the three-day trial, the State twice alerted the court that a juror appeared to be sleeping. On the second day, the prosecutor observed a juror “nodding off” during cross-examination. On the third day, the State again reported that the juror was “dozing off” and sometimes “seemingly out.” Despite these reports and the availability of an alternate juror, the trial court declined to identify the sleeping juror, question them, or make a substitution. Defense counsel stated he had not noticed any jurors sleeping and did not object to the court’s handling of the situation.

Key Legal Issues

Since Marquina failed to preserve this issue at trial, the appellate courts analyzed whether the trial court committed plain error and whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The central question was whether Utah law requires specific procedures when a court receives reliable reports of a sleeping juror.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court found no plain error, emphasizing that Utah has no “settled appellate law” establishing a mandatory protocol for sleeping jurors. The Court noted its precedent granting trial court discretion in handling such situations, making any error not “obvious” as required for plain error. However, the Court expressed “misgivings” about the trial court’s dismissive response to reliable reports and established new guidance going forward. The Court clarified that trial courts must respond “proportionally” to reports of inattentive jurors and cannot simply dismiss such concerns without investigation. The Court also rejected the ineffective assistance claim, noting the strong presumption favoring counsel’s strategic decisions regarding jurors.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for handling sleeping juror scenarios. While trial courts retain discretion, they must now respond proportionally to reliable reports rather than dismissively. Practitioners should document any observations of inattentive jurors on the record and request appropriate inquiry. The Court warned that future dismissive responses to serious reports would constitute plain error, raising the stakes for trial courts. Defense counsel must carefully consider whether to request juror substitution, as strategic decisions receive strong deference on appeal.