Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Hopt v. Territory of Utah

Supreme Court of the United States · 1884 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal Proceduredefendant presencefelony trialjury selectionactual biasjuror challengeshearsayjudicial comment on facts

Facts

At the defendant's felony trial, six prospective jurors were challenged for actual bias, and appointed triers took each juror into another room and tried the challenges outside the presence of the court, the defendant, and counsel; two of those jurors ultimately sat on the case. The trial court also permitted a surgeon who examined a corpse to testify that another person identified the body to him as the victim, although the surgeon lacked personal knowledge of the body's identity. In its charge, the court told the jury that "an atrocious and dastardly murder has been committed by some person," and the prosecution also used testimony from Emerson, a convicted murderer, after Utah repealed a statute disqualifying convicted felons as witnesses.

Issue

Whether the conviction had to be reversed because the defendant was absent during the trial of juror-bias challenges, because hearsay identifying the body was admitted, and because the judge improperly commented on a matter of fact in the charge. The case also presented whether a confession was properly admitted and whether a later statute making convicted felons competent witnesses could be applied without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Rule

In a felony prosecution, a statute requiring the accused to be personally present "at the trial" means the defendant must be present at every stage after the case is called for trial in which substantial rights may be affected, including the empaneling of the jury and the trial of challenges for actual bias, and this requirement cannot be waived by consent or failure to object. Hearsay is inadmissible to prove a specific fact susceptible of proof by a witness with personal knowledge. A judge may state the law and testimony but may not charge the jury with respect to matters of fact. A statute that merely removes witness-competency restrictions and does not change the crime, punishment, or amount or degree of proof necessary for conviction is procedural only and is not ex post facto when applied to prior crimes.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a felony assault trial in Phoenix, the judge calls the case and begins selecting jurors. During voir dire, one prospective juror is challenged for actual bias, and the judge sends the juror and three appointed triers into a conference room to resolve the challenge while the defendant, Luis Moreno, remains in the courtroom holding cell; defense counsel is allowed to attend, and the juror is ultimately seated.

If Luis is convicted, which argument is strongest on appeal?

Explanation. The governing rule is that in a felony case, the accused must be personally present at every stage of the trial after the case is called in which substantial rights may be affected. The trial includes at least the empaneling of the jury and the trial of challenges for actual bias. Counsel's presence alone is not enough, and reversal does not depend on a further showing of actual bias in the seated juror. (Derived from Hopt v. Territory of Utah (1884).)