Must Utah trial courts inquire about defendants appearing in prison clothing? State v. Bennett Explained

In State v. Bennett, the Utah Supreme Court reaffirmed a critical procedural protection for criminal defendants, holding that trial courts must affirmatively inquire when defendants appear at trial in identifiable prison clothing.

Background and Facts

Eugene Reed Bennett was charged with sodomy and rape of a child. On the first day of trial, Bennett’s civilian clothing no longer fit due to weight gain during incarceration. He appeared before the jury wearing a blue jumpsuit clearly marked “Tooele County Jail” in block letters across the back. The trial court made no inquiry about Bennett’s attire, and defense counsel neither objected nor sought a continuance. Bennett wore civilian clothing brought by his mother on the second day of trial, but the jury ultimately convicted him on all counts.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court’s failure to inquire about Bennett’s appearance in jail clothing violated his due process rights. The State argued that the court should overrule its 1980 decision in Chess v. Smith and follow federal precedent requiring defendants to affirmatively object to appearing in prison garb.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court declined to overrule Chess v. Smith, emphasizing the principle of stare decisis. The court reaffirmed that “the prejudicial effect that flows from a defendant’s appearing before a jury in identifiable prison garb is not measurable, and it is so potentially prejudicial as to create a substantial risk of fundamental unfairness in a criminal trial.” The court held that trial judges must inquire on their own initiative whether defendants wish to waive their right to appear in civilian clothing, ensuring an intelligent and conscious waiver is on the record.

Practice Implications

Justice Durham’s concurrence clarified that Utah’s rule is based on the court’s supervisory power rather than federal due process requirements, making it more protective than federal precedent. For practitioners, this decision underscores the automatic reversal that follows when trial courts fail to make the required inquiry, regardless of the strength of the evidence or whether defense counsel objects.