Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Appeal Mistrial Rule23 Unanimity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court of Appeals hears challenges in Kamara appeal over juror contact, messaging evidence and jury unanimity
Summary
In State v. Kamara, the Utah Court of Appeals considered claims that juror exposure to an overheard courtroom remark warranted a mistrial under the SOTTO balancing test, Rule 23(b) proffers of thousands of text messages, and whether omissions or instruction failures prejudiced the defense.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Kamara, where defendants and the state debated several preserved and ineffective-assistance claims arising from a jury trial. The panel focused on (1) whether an in-court overheard remark heard by a single juror triggers the presumption of prejudice set out in SOTTO, (2) whether Rule 23(b) remand is warranted to consider proffered evidence (thousands of text messages and other communications), and (3) jury-unanimity and directed-verdict questions for counts tied to the victim’s testimony.
Appellant counsel raised concerns about timing-language in the victim’s testimony (the transcript records use of the word “would”) and whether that phrasing, combined with sequence and demonstrative exhibits, left the jury without the specificity needed for unanimity or for counts that require the victim to have been 13. A judge framed the challenge: the word “would” and references to school years may create ambiguity about whether testimony describes single or multiple incidents.
Counsel also pressed that a juror (juror 7) reported hearing a nearby courtroom comment that the victim or a companion was “lying,” and panelists debated whether So to (SOTTO in the record) — the Supreme Court’s framework creating a rebuttable presumption of prejudice in certain extrajudicial juror-contact cases — applies when the comment is uttered in the courtroom and heard by one juror. Judges asked whether the courtroom setting, COVID-era distancing, and plexiglass change the analysis compared with outside‑court contacts.
On the Rule 23(b) proffer, defense counsel argued that voluminous text messages between the victim and a third party (described in the record as roughly 4,000 pages) would have undercut the State’s narrative if shown to jurors; the state replied that the proffer is incomplete, potentially missing Facebook messages and other platform messages, and therefore speculative. State counsel urged the court to affirm the convictions and to deny the Rule 23(b) remand request as the proffered evidence is “speculative, incomplete, or inadmissible.”
Judges also examined the unanimity instruction question for counts where the victim testified in broad terms (e.g., 15–50 instances): the prosecutors maintained no discrete acts were presented that could be parceled out to jurors, while defense counsel argued that a unanimity instruction protects against the possibility that jurors convicted based on different acts without agreement on the same underlying conduct.
The state asked the court to affirm Kamara’s convictions in full; the panel said it would take the matter under advisement and issue an opinion when ready.
