When must Utah courts give specific jury unanimity instructions in criminal cases? State v. Jimenez Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed a critical issue in criminal defense practice: when trial counsel must request specific jury unanimity instructions to avoid ineffective assistance claims. In State v. Jimenez, the court reversed a sexual abuse conviction where counsel failed to seek such an instruction despite evidence of multiple distinct acts.

Background and Facts

Jimenez was charged with one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child based on allegations by his stepdaughter. The victim testified about abuse occurring in three distinct locations: Jimenez’s bedroom after school, her own bedroom at night, and during a lice-combing incident. Despite evidence of multiple acts, the State charged only one count and obtained a conviction without providing the jury a specific unanimity instruction.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an instruction requiring jurors to unanimously agree on which specific act supported the conviction. The court also examined whether the State’s prosecutorial election was sufficiently clear to excuse counsel’s omission.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the two-prong Strickland test for ineffective assistance. Under the deficient performance prong, the court found counsel’s conduct objectively unreasonable because well-established precedent required specific unanimity instructions when evidence shows more criminal acts than charged counts. The State’s trial presentation failed to clearly identify which act supported the charge, despite pretrial assurances of prosecutorial election.

For the prejudice prong, the court distinguished cases where specific instructions wouldn’t change outcomes. Here, the three alleged incidents were materially different with distinct evidentiary weaknesses, creating a reasonable probability that jurors might believe some but not all instances occurred.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that criminal defense attorneys must vigilantly protect clients’ constitutional right to unanimous verdicts. When evidence suggests multiple acts but fewer counts are charged, counsel should request specific unanimity instructions regardless of prosecutorial assurances. The court’s analysis emphasizes that such instructions help “hold the State to its full and complete burden of proof” by requiring focused deliberation on specific criminal acts.