In State v. Chadwick the Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether jury instructions provided by the district court violated the Unanimous Verdict Clause of the Utah Constitution.
Facts
Chadwick was charged with four counts of sexual abuse of a child, each count correlating with a separate instance of abuse. During trial, the state presented specific evidence supporting each time the abuse had allegedly occurred. However, when the judge presented jury instructions they did not link the charged counts to dates or to any specifically alleged conduct. Two times while deliberating, the jury asked for clarification on what particular conduct was linked to each count of abuse. The court’s answer stated that the jury only needed to determine “if the State has or has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the occurrence of one, two, three, or four behaviors that violated the law.” The jury eventually found Chadwick guilty on Count One, but acquitted him of the remaining counts.
Legal Question
On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court considered whether a constitutional violation of the Unanimous Verdict Clause had occurred, and whether that error was prejudicial to Chadwick. The Unanimous Verdict Clause requires a jury to be unanimous about which elements were met of the charged crime, as well as unanimous about what specific acts supported each element. The Utah Supreme Court had previously not articulated a standard for determining when a unanimous verdict violation had occurred, but chose to do so here, stating, “constitutional error occurs when the defendant shows that the circumstances of the case undermine our confidence in the unanimity of the verdict.”
Ruling
The Court explained that this standard is presumptively met in multiple-act cases where the counts charged are identical and not linked to specific conduct. Under these circumstances a jury may erroneously think they have reached a unanimous verdict when jurors “mix and match” the illicit conduct they each respectively believe was proven.
In Chadwick’s case he was charged with four identical counts of abuse, which were not connected to any particular act when jury instructions were given. Under the rule created by the Utah Supreme Court these instructions presumptively violate the Unanimous Verdict Clause. Furthermore, the Court determined this violation was prejudicial to Chadwick given that the jury twice asked for clarification on what conduct supported each count charged, and only chose to convict Chadwick of a single count. These circumstances were sufficient to undermine the Court’s confidence in the unanimity of the verdict, and the Court vacated the conviction.