Can trial counsel effectively stipulate to Allen charges in Utah criminal cases? State v. Weaver Explained

In State v. Weaver, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial counsel’s stipulation to an Allen charge constituted ineffective assistance when the supplemental jury instruction did not specifically remind deadlocked jurors about the defendant’s presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proof.

Background and Facts

Christopher Weaver was charged with criminal automobile homicide after his pickup truck struck and killed a driver stopped at a red light. A toxicology report revealed oxycodone in Weaver’s system, and witnesses testified about his prolonged erratic driving before the crash. During jury deliberations, the panel sent two questions indicating they had reached unanimous agreement on the speeding charge but could not agree on the automobile homicide count. With stipulation from both counsel, the trial court gave an Allen charge instructing the jury to continue deliberating while respecting individual judgment and conscience.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether counsel’s stipulation to the Allen charge constituted ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) whether text messages between Weaver and his wife showing consciousness of risk were properly admitted under Rule 404(b); and (3) whether sufficient evidence supported the impairment element of negligent automobile homicide.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the two-part test for determining whether an Allen charge is coercive, examining both the language itself and the specific circumstances. The court emphasized that Allen charges need not include specific reminders about burden of proof when the jury has already been properly instructed on these principles. The instruction here was not coercive per se because it urged unanimous verdict only “if each of you can do so without violating your individual judgment and conscience” and explicitly stated it was “not meant to rush you or pressure you.”

Regarding the text messages, the court found they were properly admitted to prove criminal negligence because they showed Weaver’s consciousness of the risk of driving with substances in his system. On sufficiency, the court held that evidence of prolonged erratic driving, excessive speed, failure to brake appropriately, and oxycodone in defendant’s system was sufficient to prove impairment.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Allen charges in Utah need not contain every possible protective instruction when other jury instructions already cover fundamental concepts like burden of proof. Practitioners should focus challenges on whether the specific language is inherently coercive rather than arguing about missing optional elements. The decision also reinforces that evidence showing consciousness of risk can be powerful proof of the mental state required for criminal negligence charges.