Utah Court of Appeals
When must Utah trial courts give specific unanimity instructions in criminal cases? State v. Granere Explained
Summary
Charles Granere was convicted of rape of a child, object rape of a child, and aggravated sexual abuse of a child based on testimony from a ten-year-old victim. The jury heard evidence of multiple instances of abuse but was not instructed that it must unanimously agree on which specific acts supported each conviction.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Granere addressed a critical issue in criminal jury instructions: when courts must provide specific unanimity instructions to ensure constitutional jury unanimity requirements are satisfied.
Background and Facts
Granere was charged with rape of a child, object rape of a child, and aggravated sexual abuse of a child based on testimony from a ten-year-old victim. The prosecution presented evidence of multiple instances of abuse: several occasions of rape at both an apartment and cabin, digital penetration on a bed, and various touching incidents. However, the jury was only given a general instruction that its verdict must be unanimous, without specific guidance on which acts supported each charge.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to request proper unanimity instructions when multiple criminal acts supported individual charges. Under Utah law, where evidence indicates multiple distinct criminal acts but the defendant is charged with only one count, the jury must be unanimous as to which specific act constitutes the charged crime.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance claims, requiring both deficient performance and prejudice. For the rape and aggravated sexual abuse charges, the court found counsel performed deficiently because the jury heard testimony of multiple acts supporting each charge, yet received no instruction requiring unanimity on specific underlying acts. The court established prejudice because the evidence was not overwhelming and jurors could have disagreed on which specific acts occurred while still reaching guilty verdicts.
However, for the object rape conviction, only one specific incident was presented to the jury, making a more detailed unanimity instruction unnecessary. The court affirmed this conviction while reversing the other two.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah practitioners must carefully analyze jury instructions in cases involving multiple potential criminal acts. The unanimity requirement is not satisfied by generic instructions when multiple distinct acts could support a single charge. Defense counsel should always request specific unanimity instructions in such circumstances, and prosecutors should be mindful that presenting multiple acts without proper instructions risks reversal on appeal. The decision also demonstrates that prosecutorial closing arguments cannot cure deficient jury instructions unless they clearly identify which specific acts support each charge.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Granere
Citation
2024 UT App 1
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20190593-CA
Date Decided
January 5, 2024
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to request unanimity instructions on rape of a child and aggravated sexual abuse of a child charges where multiple acts were presented to the jury supporting each charge.
Standard of Review
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims present mixed questions of fact and law reviewed for correctness as to legal application and clear error as to factual findings; evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; denial of motion to arrest judgment reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
Always request specific unanimity instructions when the prosecution presents evidence of multiple acts that could support a single charge, as failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of 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
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.