File photo of defendant Julie Ann Budge, who is convicted of second-degree felony vehicle homicide in connection with fatal crash in Washington City on April 9, 2022, that killed two bicyclists following the verdict in 5th District Court in St. George, Utah, Jan. 29, 2024 | Photo by Cody Blowers, St. George News
ST. GEORGE — A hearing was recently held to argue a motion to arrest judgment following a guilty verdict in the trial of Julie Ann Budge. Then numerous witnesses that were subpoenaed by the defense to testify were dismissed when the hearing ended after the first two jurors took the stand.
Budge, 48, was the driver who struck two cyclists that died during an annual ride in Washington County in 2022. Following the crash, she was charged with two second-degree felony counts of automobile homicide, criminal negligence — driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs, as well as two third-degree felony counts of leaving the scene of an accident involving death.
The trial opened Jan. 22, before Judge Donald J. Eyre Jr., a senior 4th District Court judge who was appointed to hear the case. Budge was represented by Lindsay Jarvis and co-counsel Greg Law, two West Jordan attorneys, while the state was represented by prosecutors Zachary Weiland and Ryan Shaum.
The jury was given four options for the negligent automobile homicide charge, the first being the two second-degree felony counts that were filed shortly after the arrest — one for each of the victims killed in the crash.
The second option was to convict on a negligent automobile homicide charge, which they would have to find that Budge was negligent due to impairment. The third, a negligent homicide charge without impairment as a factor, each of which are third-degree felonies. The final option was to find the defendant not guilty.
The jury returned after three-plus hours with a split verdict that found the defendant guilty of a lesser charge for each of the cyclists killed — two third-degree felony counts of automobile homicide negligence.
Budge was also found guilty of reckless driving and failing to remain in her lane of travel, while the jury found her not guilty of two counts of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. The maximum sentence on each of the felony counts is 0-5 years in prison, and six months in jail on the reckless driving.
The case was scheduled for a sentencing hearing on March 6, but was continued with no future date after a motion to arrest judgment was filed by the defense in the case. The motion was filed based on several issues discovered during a post-trial investigation conducted by the defense that alleged juror and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as issues relating to the testimony of the officers.
More than one dozen people were subpoenaed to take the stand during the evidentiary hearing held on April 23.
The motion to arrest is less common in court, since it is limited to certain grounds, such as to challenge the legal sufficiency of a trial court’s judgment if there is a defect in the state’s charging documents, for example. Or it may be used if a jury’s verdict is defective or otherwise invalid — either by error or jury misconduct. This particular motion can only be filed by the defense team.
Budge’s defense obtained hours of video footage taken of the courtroom during trial, as well as from the hallways of the courthouse. The investigation also included audio recordings of the interviews conducted with several of the jurors at their homes in the weeks following the verdict.
Four of those jurors interviewed were subpoenaed to testify, but only two took the stand during the hearing. Both jurors testified that Jarvis came to their home and told each of them that she was there to ask general questions about their jury service during the trial, information the attorney said she would use to “be a better trial lawyer,” as one juror put it.
The second juror testified that Jarvis had told him his answers would be used to enhance defense strategies going forward.
During the interviews, both said they were asked to go over various details as to how they were selected to serve on the jury, as well as how they had come to a verdict. Both said they assumed they were helping the attorney by answering her questions.
Unbeknownst to either juror, the interviews were recorded and later used for issues related to possible juror misconduct.
The first juror testified that during the interview, she thought it “unusual” that a defense attorney would come to their home and ask questions relating to their jury service, but thought she was helping so she agreed to answer the questions.
During the conversation, the juror said they had attended a police citizens academy on two occasions years ago, which is when Jarvis began asking questions as to how that may have influenced their role in the verdict, then reminded them that one of the questions asked during voir dire was if they had any family or friends in law enforcement.
The juror answered that while they recognized a few officers after taking one of the courses, and may have waved at them if they saw the officer in public, for example, she had not considered that as having a friendship. So those courses had not come to mind during jury selection, and she had only remembered it while talking to the defense attorney at their home following the trial.
The second juror said they were relaxed during the interview and thought they were helping the attorney by answering her questions, several of which were related to religious affiliations and how that could have influenced his mindset during deliberations.
He said she had also asked about personal medications, as well as his comments made during the interview at his home about afternoon naps — information that was used during his testimony on the stand during the hearing.
Jarvis then showed a dozen clips which she said would show the juror possibly dozing, or not paying attention during the trial. When the juror was questioned about the clips, he asked if they were taken in real time, since each of the clips shown in court were less than a minute long, with some being 2-3 second segments.
None were definitive enough to show him sleeping or nodding off, the juror told the court. He also testified that he had spoken to the attorney at his home that day because he thought he was assisting her, since that was what she had told him at the start of the interview.
The juror noted the attorney never said they would be discussing details related to the trial.
The prosecutor provided multiple objections during the questioning, and told the court that Jarvis was not allowed to ask the jurors questions about their mindset during their deliberations, or to present testimony related to any alleged evidence found during her post-investigation, since that would mean the hearing was, in essence, “a trial after a trial.”
After the first two jurors testified, the court took a recess. From there, the remaining witnesses were dismissed and the hearing was adjourned with no further testimony. The judge overruled the defense’s motion to arrest judgement in the case, meaning the jury verdict stands.
On Tuesday, the defense filed a nine-page objection to the presentence report and a sentencing date has yet to be scheduled. Budge, meanwhile, continues to be held at the Washington County jail, where she has remained since her arrest two years ago, without bail.
This report is based on statements from court records, police or other responders and may not contain the full scope of findings. Persons arrested or charged are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law or as otherwise decided by a trier-of-fact.
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2024, all rights reserved.
Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider. This website makes no warranties or representations in connection therewith. If you are affiliated with this page and would like it removed please contact editor @santaclarautah.business
