When do off-the-record comments to jurors trigger a presumption of prejudice? State v. Camara Explained

In State v. Camara, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical issue facing trial practitioners: when do off-the-record communications with jurors trigger the heightened presumption of prejudice standard rather than ordinary mistrial analysis?

Background and Facts

During Camara’s trial for child sexual abuse, jurors were seated both in the jury box and gallery due to COVID-19 social distancing requirements. The alleged victim, Bree, was permitted to sit in the gallery during trial. When a defense witness testified favorably for Camara, Juror 7 overheard either Bree or her attorney say “she’s lying.” The trial court denied Camara’s subsequent mistrial motion, finding no articulation of prejudice under ordinary mistrial standards.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether State v. Soto‘s presumption of prejudice test applies to off-the-record comments made inside the courtroom during trial, or whether such situations should be analyzed under ordinary mistrial standards. The majority and lead opinion disagreed on this threshold question, with the majority adopting a broader interpretation of when unauthorized communications trigger the Soto analysis.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The majority held that the key distinction is not whether contact occurs inside or outside the courtroom, but whether it occurs on-the-record or off-the-record. Off-the-record communications lack the procedural safeguards of sworn testimony, cross-examination, and evidentiary rules. Applying Soto’s three-part test examining who said what under what circumstances, the court found the presumption of prejudice applied because the speaker was either the victim or someone associated with her, the statement directly challenged witness credibility, and no special circumstances weighed against the presumption.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly expands when the presumption of prejudice applies to jury contact. Practitioners should be aware that inadvertent off-the-record comments during trial—even inside the courtroom—may trigger heightened scrutiny. The State faces a heavy burden to prove such contact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, potentially requiring testimony from the communicators or proof that evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Trial courts should carefully manage courtroom observers and consider prophylactic measures to prevent unauthorized communications.