Utah Court of Appeals
Must Utah juries receive specific unanimity instructions when prosecutors present multiple criminal acts? State v. Garcia-Lorenzo Explained
Summary
Garcia-Lorenzo was convicted of sodomy and aggravated sexual abuse of his stepdaughter based on evidence of four potentially criminal acts. The jury received only a general unanimity instruction, not a specific instruction requiring unanimous agreement on which acts formed the basis for each charge.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Garcia-Lorenzo, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request specific jury unanimity instructions when the prosecution presented evidence of multiple criminal acts but charged fewer counts.
Background and Facts
Garcia-Lorenzo was charged with one count of sodomy and one count of aggravated sexual abuse involving his eight-year-old stepdaughter. However, the State presented evidence of four potentially criminal acts: two alleged incidents of sodomy (one at an old house and one on New Year’s Eve) and two alleged touching incidents on New Year’s Eve (touching the child’s vagina and anus with his penis). The trial court provided only a general unanimity instruction, not a specific instruction requiring jurors to agree on which acts supported each charge.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether defense counsel’s failure to request a specific jury unanimity instruction constituted ineffective assistance when the State charged two counts but presented evidence of four potentially criminal acts. The court also addressed whether State v. Alires should be partially overruled and provided guidance on prosecutorial conduct regarding leading questions during cross-examination of child witnesses.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Applying State v. Alires, the court held that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to request a specific unanimity instruction. The Utah Constitution requires unanimous agreement not just on guilt generally, but on the specific acts underlying each charge. When prosecutors present more potentially criminal acts than charges filed, jurors could disagree on which acts occurred while still reaching unanimous guilty verdicts, violating constitutional unanimity requirements. The court declined to overrule Alires, noting the robust line of cases relying on its precedent and pending Utah Supreme Court review.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that practitioners must carefully analyze charging decisions against the evidence presented. When the State presents evidence of more criminal acts than charges filed, defense counsel should request specific unanimity instructions requiring jurors to agree on which particular acts support each count. The court also clarified that asking leading questions during cross-examination of child witnesses is proper advocacy, not misconduct, and prosecutors should not suggest otherwise through expert testimony or argument.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Garcia-Lorenzo
Citation
2022 UT App 101
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20200369-CA
Date Decided
August 18, 2022
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a specific jury unanimity instruction when the State charged the defendant with two counts but presented evidence of four potentially criminal acts.
Standard of Review
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed as a matter of law
Practice Tip
When the State charges fewer counts than the number of potentially criminal acts presented at trial, request specific jury unanimity instructions requiring the jury to agree on which acts support each charge.
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.