Must criminal defendants use peremptory challenges to preserve jury bias claims? State v. Baker Explained

In State v. Baker, the Utah Supreme Court established a critical rule that fundamentally changed how criminal defendants must respond to erroneous trial court rulings on jury selection. The case involved a defendant convicted of rape and sodomy who challenged a potentially biased juror during voir dire but failed to follow through when the trial court denied his challenge.

Background and Facts

During jury selection for Baker’s trial, three prospective jurors indicated they could not remain impartial regarding child sexual abuse evidence. Juror 19 specifically stated his sister had been raped and sodomized when she was eight years old. While the trial court excused two jurors for cause, it denied Baker’s challenge to Juror 19 after the juror withdrew his initial admission of bias. Critically, Baker did not use any of his four peremptory challenges to remove Juror 19. Instead, he used all four challenges to remove women jurors he had not challenged for cause. Juror 19 sat on the jury that convicted Baker.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented the narrow question of whether a defendant can obtain reversal when the trial court erroneously denies a for-cause challenge, but the defendant fails to cure the error by exercising a peremptory challenge against that juror. The court had to balance the defendant’s right to an impartial jury against the strategic use of peremptory challenges.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court adopted the “cure or waive” rule, requiring defendants to use available peremptory challenges to remove jurors improperly retained after unsuccessful for-cause challenges. The court emphasized that peremptory challenges are not constitutionally guaranteed rights but procedural tools designed to facilitate impartial juries. Under State v. Menzies, defendants already bore the burden of showing actual prejudice from biased jurors. The court reasoned that allowing Baker to preserve error without attempting to cure it would encourage the strategic planting of reversible error.

Practice Implications

This decision fundamentally altered criminal defense strategy in Utah. Defense counsel can no longer rely on trial court error alone to preserve jury bias claims for appeal. When a for-cause challenge is erroneously denied, counsel must immediately use a peremptory challenge or risk waiving the issue entirely. The rule applies retroactively to the case in which it was announced, demonstrating that new procedural rules can have immediate consequences for pending appeals.