Judge's questions to defendant not prejudicial, prosecutors say

State prosecutors say a Grand County judge did not cross the legal line of impartiality when he posed an estimated 50 questions to a former Moab softball coach on trial for sexual abuse of a 14-year-old student.

During oral arguments before the Utah Supreme Court on Thursday, Karen Klucznik, assistant Utah attorney general, said the judge who presided over the trial of Arielle Beck may have asked about 50 questions of Beck when she was cross examined on the witness stand, but the judge did not take on the prosecution's role in his questioning.

However, the Utah Court of Appeals ruled in May of 2006 that Beck deserved a new trial due to 7th District Judge Lyle Anderson's questioning, which the appeals court found may have prejudiced the jury and affected the jury's guilty verdict toward Beck.

Klucznik told justices Thursday that Utah law affords broad discretion to judges in questioning witnesses but discourages judges from taking on the role of the prosecution or defense. In this case, Klucznik said the questions were not obviously prejudicial.

Beck's attorney, Edward Brass, took issue with that claim and argued the judge's questions "belittled" Beck, were "sarcastic" and "adversarial."

Beck was accused by prosecutors of "grooming" a 14-year-old girl for a sexual affair with her. During trial, prosecutors said Beck met the victim while coaching softball in the summer of 2002. The two exchanged numerous e-mails and letters; some were love letters, police claimed. When the girl returned back to school, Beck volunteered to be a teaching assistant in the girl's English class.

A jury found Beck guilty of three counts of forcible sexual abuse, a second-degree felony, and misdemeanor counts of unlawful supply of alcohol to a minor and violating a civil stalking injunction. Beck was sentenced to three consecutive terms of one to 15 years in prison and given one year in jail for each misdemeanor count.

Before the verdict, however, Anderson questioned Beck on why she had not turned over certain evidence to police. In front of jurors, Anderson asked Beck if the school principal had told her one of her letters was "incriminating" and also pressed Beck on why she had not turned her personal computer over to investigators.

Brass argued before justices on Thursday that Beck has a constitutional right against self-incrimination and that the judge should have known better than to raise suspicion in the minds of jurors by asking such questions.

Justices questioned if it was appropriate for a judge to ask questions that "fill in the gaps" in the evidence and if that crossed the legal line.

Brass said the court should uphold the court of appeals' decision and order a new trial for his client. Klucznik said the judge's questions aside, the weight of the evidence against Beck was sufficient to justify her conviction.

The supreme court is expected to issue a written decision in the coming months.

---

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com