Can Utah courts limit voir dire questions about children's truthfulness? State v. Wall Explained

In State v. Wall, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the boundaries between proper voir dire questioning and improper “stakeout” questions, providing important guidance for criminal defense practitioners handling cases involving child witnesses.

Background and Facts

Wayne Wall was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child after his friend’s six-year-old stepdaughter disclosed abuse during a fishing trip. Wall sought to ask potential jurors during voir dire: “Do you believe children are capable of lying about significant events?” The trial court rejected this question, explaining that Wall could “make [his] own case” during trial but that the court would not ask whether jurors think “any particular type of witness is lying.” Wall was ultimately convicted on both counts.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether trial courts can limit voir dire questions about children’s credibility, the boundaries of proper prosecutorial argument during closing, and the standards for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims involving strategic decisions about objections.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, distinguishing between legitimate bias inquiry and improper stakeout questions. The court explained that Wall’s proposed question was “quite clearly aimed at discovering jurors who would be favorable to the defense’s theory that [the victim] was lying about the abuse.” Such questions improperly telegraph the defendant’s specific theory rather than neutrally exploring potential juror bias.

Importantly, the court noted that a properly constructed question could have explored bias regarding child witnesses without simultaneously revealing the defense strategy. The court also found that defense counsel’s failure to object to certain prosecutorial statements and hearsay testimony constituted reasonable trial strategy rather than deficient performance.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that while Utah courts should be “permissive in allowing voir dire questions,” they have broad discretion to exclude questions designed to identify jurors favorable to specific defense theories. Practitioners must craft voir dire questions that genuinely explore bias rather than preview their case strategy. When courts reject proposed questions, counsel should immediately suggest alternative phrasing that addresses legitimate bias concerns, as courts have no obligation to craft proper questions for attorneys.