Does the failure to request a specific unanimity instruction always require reversal? Miranda v. State Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Miranda v. State addressed whether a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a specific jury unanimity instruction must demonstrate prejudice under the Strickland standard when the issue was unpreserved.

Background and Facts

A jury convicted Adolfo Miranda on six counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and three counts of rape of a child for acts against his stepdaughter. The trial court’s jury instructions failed to link specific acts to each charge or clarify that jurors must agree on the same underlying act for each conviction. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Miranda filed a postconviction petition claiming his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for not requesting a specific unanimity instruction or raising the issue on appeal. The State conceded deficient performance, leaving only the prejudice analysis.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Miranda demonstrated prejudice under Strickland v. Washington from counsel’s failure to ensure proper unanimity instructions. The postconviction court relied on State v. Chadwick to conclude that multiple-acts cases inherently undermine confidence in verdict unanimity, but the Court of Appeals found this analysis misplaced for unpreserved errors.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, distinguishing between preserved and unpreserved unanimity errors. While Chadwick established a rebuttable presumption of prejudice for preserved unanimity issues, unpreserved errors require defendants to satisfy the Strickland prejudice standard. The court found no reasonable probability of a different outcome, noting that the jury’s guilty verdicts on all counts demonstrated unanimous agreement on the underlying criminal acts. The prosecutor’s closing argument adequately linked charges to specific locations where abuse occurred, and the victim’s detailed, credible testimony supported the jury’s findings.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that postconviction challenges to unanimity instruction errors require actual prejudice analysis rather than presumptions. Practitioners should preserve unanimity objections at trial to benefit from the Chadwick presumption. When challenging unpreserved errors, focus on demonstrating how the lack of specific instructions likely affected the jury’s deliberative process and verdict.