When must Utah courts give unanimity instructions for alternative conviction theories? State v. Evans Explained

In State v. Evans, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether trial courts must provide specific unanimity instructions when jury instructions present alternative theories for conviction. The case arose from a violent confrontation between defendant Jason Evans and undercover police officers during a traffic stop.

Background and Facts

During an August 1997 traffic stop in West Valley City, Evans emerged from his vehicle with a rifle and immediately began firing at Officer Robert Idle, who was approaching in plainclothes but with visible badge and weapon. Evans wounded Idle and continued firing at other officers while fleeing the scene. Stray bullets struck passing vehicles, narrowly missing civilian passengers including children. Evans was convicted of two counts of attempted aggravated murder and one count of failure to respond to an officer’s signal.

Key Legal Issues

Evans raised three primary challenges: (1) the trial court’s failure to provide a unanimity instruction regarding alternative theories for attempted aggravated murder conviction; (2) denial of a lesser-included offense instruction for attempted manslaughter; and (3) failure to declare a mistrial after discovering a juror’s undisclosed family relationship with the chief deputy prosecutor.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying plain error review to the unanimity instruction claim, the Court found that even if error occurred, Evans failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome. The jury instructions, which Evans himself had requested, listed alternative aggravating circumstances but did not require explicit unanimity as to which circumstance applied. However, overwhelming evidence contradicted Evans’s claim that he was unaware he had shot a police officer, including testimony from his own passengers that they knew they were being pulled over by police.

Regarding the lesser-included offense instruction, the Court acknowledged error under State v. Baker but deemed it harmless given the strength of evidence establishing Evans knew he was firing at a police officer. For the juror misconduct claim, the Court applied the McDonough test, finding that while the juror failed to disclose her relationship, she would not have been stricken for cause based on the trial court’s extensive interview revealing minimal contact and no bias.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that plain error review requires more than identifying potential error—practitioners must demonstrate reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome. When challenging jury instructions, courts will examine the totality of evidence in conducting harmless error analysis. The case also clarifies that family relationships between jurors and prosecution offices do not automatically require mistrials without evidence of actual bias or inability to be impartial.