The Utah Supreme Court has remanded a criminal conviction

Two court personnel—a uniformed highway patrolman assigned to protect the Supreme Court and a court IT technician— shared a nonpublic courthouse elevator with a jury during trial and told them, in so many words, to find the defendant, Anthony Soto, guilty, and, according to at least one juror, to ―hang him. All the while, the trial court bailiff stood quietly in the elevator, arguably condoning these statements through his silence.

We granted certiorari to determine if the court of appeals correctly held that such conduct triggers a rebuttable presumption of prejudice against Soto. Based on the Utah Constitution and long-standing precedent, we conclude that the court of appeals was correct.

Result

The regretful contact in this case violated Soto‘s right to an impartial jury and triggered a rebuttable presumption that Soto was prejudiced by that constitutional assault. Our precedents dictate that to rebut this presumption, the State must show the contact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We remand the case to the district court to determine whether the State has met this burden.