Utah Court of Appeals hears arguments in State v. Yourren over notice, unanimity and jury instructions

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Yourren on whether the trial court and parties gave the defense sufficient notice of the state’s precise theft and exploitation theories and whether the jury was required to be unanimous about the particular transaction or act that supported the single theft count.

The issue matters because the defense says a lack of particularized notice and the absence of a special verdict form left the jury free to convict without agreeing on the same specific act or acts, potentially violating the defendant’s due-process and unanimity rights. Appellate judges repeatedly questioned both sides about preservation of objections and the proper legal standard to assess prejudice.

Appellate counsel for the defendant, Deborah Taliaferra, told the court that the case involved a longtime neighbor relationship in which a rancher, William Henroyd, transferred property and financial control in ways the state later characterized as exploitation and theft. Taliaferra argued that the state’s broad presentation — “throw everything against the wall and let’s see what we can come up with,” as she characterized the trial strategy — deprived the defense of the ability to prepare for a focused trial presentation…