## Facts

- Flint Wayne Harrison was tried for first-degree rape and second-degree forcible sexual abuse involving A.G., a 17-year-old.
- A.G. testified she became intoxicated at a party, passed out, and was raped; Harrison admitted intercourse but claimed consent.
- Because A.G. was a minor, the court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for her.
- The court allowed a victim’s advocate to sit near A.G. while she testified.
- The court permitted the GAL to sit at the prosecutor’s counsel table, ask follow-up questions of the State’s witnesses, object during defense cross-examination, and question a defense expert after cross-examination.
- The court did not allow the GAL to make opening or closing statements.
- After sustaining an objection to an improper GAL question to a defense expert, the court did not instruct the jury to disregard the question.
- The jury convicted Harrison on both counts.

## Issues

1. Whether permitting a victim’s advocate to sit near the minor victim during testimony and permitting the GAL to sit with the prosecution, question witnesses, and object to defense questioning violated the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.
2. Whether the cumulative effect of these courtroom practices created inherent prejudice requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed Harrison’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the GAL’s role and placement effectively made the GAL a visible second prosecutor, creating an unacceptable risk of prejudice.
- The court treated the challenge as one to inherently prejudicial courtroom practices that could erode the presumption of innocence.
- The failure to provide a curative instruction after sustaining an objection to a GAL question contributed to the overall risk of prejudice.
- The court did not treat the victim’s advocate’s presence alone as dispositive, but considered it as part of the overall courtroom configuration.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to manage trials, but that discretion is limited when a practice is inherently prejudicial.
- A practice is impermissible if it presents an unacceptable risk that impermissible factors will influence the jury and erode the presumption of innocence.
- A guardian ad litem’s function is to represent a minor’s best interests within statutory bounds and may not be expanded into an advocacy role that aligns the GAL with the prosecution against the accused.
- Courtroom arrangements and third-party participation must be structured so they do not compromise the adversarial balance or the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

## Conclusion

Because the GAL’s placement at the prosecution table and active participation in questioning and objections conveyed to the jury that the State had an additional attorney advocating guilt, the combined courtroom practices posed an unacceptable risk of prejudice and required reversal and a new trial.


State v. Harrison, 24 P.3d 936 (Utah 2001)