What jury instructions satisfy Utah's unanimity requirement for criminal convictions? State v. Alarid Explained

In State v. Alarid, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether jury instructions adequately conveyed the unanimity requirement for criminal convictions and whether counsel’s failure to challenge prosecutorial misconduct constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Background and Facts

Joseph Alarid was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse against his stepdaughter, including aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The victim testified about various instances of abuse, including touching of her breasts. At trial, the jury received Instruction 47, which stated that “[e]ach juror must also unanimously agree on the specific instance underlying each allegation or count.” The jury convicted Alarid on Count IV and indicated on the special verdict form that he had “touched the breasts” of the victim. During closing argument, the prosecutor improperly referred to a defense witness as a “co-conspirator” and claimed Alarid had “told her what he wants her to say,” despite testimony to the contrary.

Key Legal Issues

Alarid raised two ineffective assistance claims: (1) counsel performed deficiently by stipulating to jury instructions that allegedly failed to adequately inform the jury of the unanimity requirement under Article I, Section 10 of the Utah Constitution, and (2) counsel failed to object to improper prosecutorial statements during closing argument that constituted misconduct.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected both claims. Regarding the jury instructions, the court distinguished State v. Alires, where jurors were never instructed about unanimity requirements. Here, Instruction 47 clearly directed jurors to “unanimously agree on the specific instance underlying each allegation or count.” The court emphasized that jury instructions must be evaluated “as a whole” and found that the instructions adequately conveyed the unanimity requirement. The court rejected Alarid’s argument that a “catch-all” instruction was insufficient, noting that particularized instructions for each count were not required. Regarding the prosecutorial misconduct claim, while the court agreed the prosecutor’s statements were improper, Alarid failed to demonstrate prejudice. The improper comments were brief, limited to one witness, and the jury had already been instructed that closing arguments are not evidence.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that general unanimity instructions can satisfy constitutional requirements when they clearly direct jurors to agree on specific instances underlying each count. Practitioners should focus on whether instructions as a whole adequately convey legal requirements rather than seeking count-specific repetition of every principle. For prosecutorial misconduct claims, practitioners must demonstrate actual prejudice, considering the limited impact of improper statements within the broader evidentiary context.