When do Utah jury instructions violate the unanimous verdict clause? State v. Chadwick Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Chadwick establishes critical precedent regarding when jury instructions violate Utah’s Unanimous Verdict Clause. The case provides appellate practitioners with a new framework for analyzing unanimity requirements in criminal cases involving multiple similar charges.

Background and Facts

David Chadwick was charged with four counts of sexual abuse of a child based on allegations of multiple incidents involving the victim F.L. The State presented evidence of several distinct acts: a “catch-it game,” inappropriate rubbing, and tickling incidents involving inappropriate touching. However, neither the charging information nor the jury instructions connected specific acts to particular counts. During closing arguments, the State attempted to link specific conduct to each count, but the trial court instructed the jury that “the order of the counts is of no particular consequence.” The jury convicted Chadwick on one count and acquitted on the other three.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the jury’s verdict violated Utah’s Unanimous Verdict Clause, which requires that “[i]n criminal cases the verdict shall be unanimous.” The Court addressed two questions: (1) when circumstances undermine confidence in verdict unanimity, and (2) what standard of review applies to such violations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court established that constitutional error occurs when circumstances undermine confidence in verdict unanimity. In multiple-act cases where defendants face identical charges not linked to specific conduct, general unanimity instructions create inherent problems. The Court adopted a rebuttable presumption of prejudice for Unanimous Verdict Clause violations, requiring the State to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying this standard, the Court found the error prejudicial because the jury’s questions during deliberation and mixed verdict suggested potential confusion about unanimity requirements.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts criminal practice in Utah courts. Defense counsel should request specific unanimity instructions in multiple-act cases, particularly when facing identical charges based on various alleged incidents. Prosecutors must carefully consider how to structure charges and should either link specific conduct to counts in the information or seek prosecutorial election during trial. The Court’s adoption of Criminal Model Utah Jury Instructions 431 and 432 provides practitioners with clear guidance for crafting appropriate unanimity instructions.