State v. Stubbs, 2005 UT 65

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of Parley Parker Pratt Stubbs's rape conviction and remanded for a new trial in a different venue. The court held that post-conviction venue review is governed by whether the defendant was actually tried by a fair and impartial jury under State v. Widdison, while the factors from State v. James may also inform that analysis. The court concluded that the extensive connections between jurors and the victim's family or prosecution witnesses prevented a fair and impartial jury from being assembled in Beaver County.

Holdings

1. The proper framework is the Widdison inquiry into whether the defendant was actually tried by a fair and impartial jury because the jury was impaneled and the case proceeded to verdict. The James factors are not exclusive of that inquiry and may also be used as relevant guidance in assessing the jury's ultimate impartiality.
2. Stubbs did not receive a fair and impartial jury because the selected jury remained populated with jurors who personally knew members of the victim's family or prosecution witnesses, and the jury pool was sufficiently tainted that a fair and impartial jury could not be assembled in Beaver County.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a post-conviction appeal challenging denial of a pretrial change-of-venue motion should be evaluated under the retrospective Widdison test, the predictive James test, or both.
2. Whether Stubbs was tried by a fair and impartial jury despite the selected jurors' connections to the victim's family and prosecution witnesses.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the change-of-venue motion.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded