State of Utah, v. Martin
Annotate this Casepublication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Jeff D. Martin,
Defendant and Appellant.
No. 980129
F I L E D
July 27, 1999
1999 UT 72
---
Third District, Salt Lake
County
The Honorable Pat B. Brian
Attorneys:
Jan Graham, Att'y Gen.,
Marian Decker, Asst. Att'y Gen., Blake A. Nakamura, Susan L. Hunt, Salt
Lake City, for plaintiff
Linda M. Jones, Stephanie
Ames, Salt Lake City, for defendant
---
ZIMMERMAN, Justice:
¶1
This case comes to us on
appeal from the conviction of Jeff Martin ("Martin") on one count of aggravated
kidnaping, one count of rape, and three counts of forcible sodomy. All
of these charges arise out of an incident involving Lorraine Egan ("Egan").
Martin claims the trial court committed error by: (i) denying Martin's
motion for a new trial based on the discovery of new evidence; (ii) denying
Martin's pre-trial motion to discover the identity of the individual Egan
alleged raped her previously; and (iii) sealing Egan's mental health records
before trial but after an in camera review. We agree that the trial court
committed error on the last two issues but not on the first. We affirm
in part and remand in part for further proceedings.
¶2
Because the legal issues
raised by this case are not related to the underlying facts of the alleged
rape, we need not discuss the facts in detail. The relevant facts can be
summarized as follows: Martin and Egan encountered one another in a parking
lot; both parties acknowledge that there was sexual contact; Martin alleges
that all contact was consensual while Egan maintains that Martin kidnaped,
raped, and sodomized her. After this series of events, Egan sought psychological
counseling at the Family Support Center. The Family Support Center created
a file dealing with Egan's case. Additionally, six months prior to this
event, Egan claimed that she was raped by another individual. This allegation
was never reported to the police.
¶3
Martin made numerous pre-trial
motions, including a motion to compel discovery of all of Egan's mental
health records and a motion to reveal the identity of the individual she
alleged had previously raped her. The court conducted an in camera review
of Egan's mental health records, disclosed a portion of them to Martin,
and sealed the remaining records. It denied the motion to reveal the identity
of the individual Egan alleged had previously raped her. The case went
to trial on December 15, 1997, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on
all counts.
¶4
Before Martin was sentenced,
he reviewed a copy of the presentence investigation report. It disclosed
that before trial, the prosecutor had told Egan that Martin had threatened
her life. Martin filed a motion, contending that he made no such threat
and that this warning may have biased Egan's trial testimony against him.
A hearing was held. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial but
struck all references to the alleged threat from the presentence investigation
report, finding them factually unsupported. Martin was then sentenced to
six years to life for the aggravated kidnaping conviction, five years to
life for each of the three sodomy convictions, and another five years to
life for the rape conviction. All sentences were to run concurrently.
¶5
Turning to the first issue
on appeal, Martin claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion
for a new trial. We first state the standard of review: if a trial court
has applied the correct legal standard, it has broad discretion in granting
or denying a motion for a new trial. See Crookston v. Fire Ins.
Exch., 860 P.2d 937, 940 (Utah 1993); see also Child v. Gonda,
972 P.2d 425, 428 (Utah 1998) (citing State v. Harmon, 956 P.2d 262, 265-66 (Utah 1998); State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 938 (Utah
1994)). The legal standard to be applied when considering a motion for
a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence is that the moving party
must show that the evidence satisfies the following factors: (i) it could
not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at the
trial; (ii) it is not merely cumulative; and (iii) it must make a different
result probable on retrial. See State v. James, 819 P.2d 781, 793 (Utah 1991) (quoting State v. Gellatly, 22 Utah 2d 148,
449 P.2d 993, 996 (1969)).
¶6
The newly-discovered evidence
upon which Martin relies is the fact that the prosecutor told Egan prior
to trial of an alleged threat that Martin had made on her life. To grant
a new trial under James, the trial court must find that all of the
listed factors are present. While the trial court did not make explicit
findings based on the James factors, it did conclude that Egan's
testimony was not affected by the alleged threat. The trial court found
that Egan had testified at a preliminary hearing prior to being informed
of the threat and that Egan's testimony there was consistent with her testimony
at trial.
¶7
In cases where there is
sufficient evidence in the record to support a ruling, this court will
uphold it even where the trial court fails to make explicit factual findings.
SeeState
v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774, 787-88 (Utah 1991). The record in this case
shows that Egan's testimony was unchanged by virtue of the warning about
the alleged threat. This provides an adequate factual basis to support
a conclusion that one of the
James factors was not present, i.e.,
impeaching Egan's testimony at a new trial with the suggestion that it
was a product of fear based on the communicated threat would not be likely
to bring about a different result on retrial. Therefore, we find that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new
trial.
¶8
Martin also argues that
the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial violated his rights
under Rule 16(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Martin did not request this
evidence, Rule 16(a) does not apply. Rule 16(a) only requires the prosecutor
to "disclose [evidence] to the defense upon request." Utah R. Crim. P.
16(a). Due process, on the other hand, requires that certain evidence be
disclosed even without a request.
¶9
Under federal due process,
a defendant's rights are violated in cases where the defendant does not
specifically request exculpatory evidence and where the prosecutor fails
to volunteer the evidence if "the omitted evidence creates a reasonable
doubt that did not otherwise exist. . . . This means the omission must
be evaluated in the context of the entire record." United States v.
Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112 (1976); see also Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); Codianna v. Morris, 660 P.2d 1101, 1106
(Utah 1983). While the evidence in this case appears to be inculpatory,
it is considered exculpatory for Brady purposes because it could
be used to impeach Egan. In
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667
(1985), the United States Supreme Court considered a prosecutor's failure
to disclose evidence that the defense might have used to impeach a government
witness. See id. at 676. The Court held that impeachment
evidence falls under the Brady rule. See id. Impeachment
evidence, when disclosed and used effectively, may make the difference
between conviction and acquittal. See id. (citing
Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959)).
¶10
On the record in this case,
however, reasonable doubt is not created by virtue of the fact that Egan
was warned before trial that Martin had threatened her life. It is clear
that Egan's testimony did not change substantially from the preliminary
hearing to the trial. Therefore, there is little basis to conclude that
Martin would be able to impeach Egan with the threat evidence on retrial
so as to create reasonable doubt. Therefore, Martin's due process rights
were not violated.
¶11
We now turn to the second
issue on appeal. Martin argues that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to discover the identity of the person Egan alleged had previously
raped her. Martin again relies on Rule 16(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal
Procedure and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Federal Constitution.
¶12
Martin filed a motion to
disclose the identity of the prior rapist in July of 1997. The State responded
to this motion by arguing that the information would not be admissible
and therefore should not be discoverable. In a minute entry, dated August
18, 1997, the trial court denied the defendant's motion stating that if
the results of the DNA test were to indicate that defendant was the most-likely
perpetrator, it would revisit the defendant's motion. After the DNA test
indicated that Martin was the most-likely perpetrator, the court, without
making findings, filed a minute entry denying the motion to disclose the
identity of the alleged prior rapist. We will begin by addressing Rule
16(a).
¶13
Rule 16(a) provides in relevant
part:
(a) Except as otherwise
provided, the prosecutor shall disclose to the defense upon request the
following material or information of which he has knowledge:
. . .
(4) evidence known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the guilt of the defendant, or mitigate the degree of the offense for reduced punishment; and
(5) any other item of evidence which the court determines on good cause shown should be made available to the defendant in order for the defendant to adequately prepare his defense. Utah R. Crim. P. 16(a)(4)-(5). A determination of "[w]hether the trial court abused its discretion in denying [a motion for discovery under rule 16(a)] . . . depends entirely upon a determination of whether the prosecutor's failure to produce the requested information resulted in prejudice sufficient to warrant reversal." State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 919 (Utah 1987). An error warrants reversal only if it is "harmful," i.e., "only if a review of the record persuades the court that without the error there was a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result for the defendant." Id. (citations omitted). Stated differently, harmful error occurs "where the likelihood of a different outcome [in the absence of the error is] sufficiently high [so as] to undermine confidence in the verdict." Id. at 920.
¶14
The question, therefore,
is first, whether Martin was entitled to the information and, second, if
he was, whether that fact would create a sufficiently high likelihood of
a different result such that our confidence in the outcome is undermined.
While this determination ordinarily would be based on a review of the record,
where the error consists of the failure of the prosecution to provide a
defendant with evidence, the record is not of much assistance in determining
whether the defense was prejudiced. See id. For this reason,
in non-disclosure cases, this court has held that the burden is on the
State to persuade the court that the error did not unfairly prejudice the
defense. See id. at 921.
¶15
The State addresses both
prongs of the test by arguing that the defendant was not entitled to the
evidence because the evidence would not have been admissible, and for the
same reason, the defendant could not have been prejudiced by its wrongful
denial. The State asserts that the admission of this evidence would be
barred by rule 412 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. We find this argument
unpersuasive.
¶16 Rule 412 states: (a) Evidence generally inadmissible. The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct . . . : (1) evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(2) evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition. Utah R. Evid. 412. Nothing in Rule 412 would exclude evidence of an alleged rape victim's previous false allegations of rape. Evidence of a false accusation would be relevant to Egan's credibility. The refusal of the trial court to allow Martin the opportunity to uncover such evidence was error. It was not harmless error because such strong impeachment evidence would go to the central issue of the case--which of the two parties to believe about the circumstances of this sexual contact. We therefore remand. The State must divulge to Martin the name of the individual Egan alleged had previously raped her and allow Martin the opportunity to search for new admissible evidence.(1)
¶17
If Martin finds any new
admissible evidence, the trial court must then hold a hearing to determine
if Martin is due a new trial.(2) In so doing,
the trial court must decide whether there is a reasonable likelihood that
the new evidence would lead a jury to an outcome more favorable to Martin.
See James, 819 P.2d at 793. If so, and if the other factors
laid out in James are present, as they appear to be, a new trial
must be granted.
¶18
We turn to the final issue
on appeal: the trial court's sealing of Egan's mental health records after
its in camera review. Martin had made a pre-trial motion to discover all
of Egan's mental health records. The court conducted an in camera review
of the records, disclosed a portion of them to Martin, and sealed the remaining
records. Martin argues that the trial court should not have left the records
sealed, but had a duty to continuously revisit the records and to turn
over to him any part of them that became material during the trial. Martin
bases this claim on the federal due process clause.
¶19
In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie,
480 U.S. 39, 60 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that the duty
to disclose material evidence is ongoing. Consequently, the trial court's
sealing the mental health records in an envelope marked "Personal and Confidential"
and never reviewing them again to determine their materiality was error.
According to Ritchie, "information that may be deemed immaterial
upon original examination may become important as the proceedings progress,
and the court would be obligated to release information material to the
fairness of the trial." Id. It is unclear from the record whether
this was done. We note for future reference that the problem might have
been avoided had the trial court required the State to provide Martin with
an index of the mental health records.(3)
An index or privilege log would have allowed Martin to request additional
documents throughout the trial if he believed that they had become material.
Further, it would serve as a check on the prosecutor's and the judge's
refusal to turn the documents over. Because the record does not indicate
that the trial court conducted an ongoing review of this sealed file, we
remand and direct the trial court to review the file in light of the actual
trial proceedings and to determine if the file contains any information
that is material and has a reasonable likelihood of producing a more favorable
outcome for Martin if produced.
¶20
Affirmed in part. Remanded
in part.
---
¶21
Chief Justice Howe, Associate
Justice Durham, Justice Stewart, and Justice Russon concur in Justice Zimmerman's
opinion.
1. The State also argues that under rule 16(a), the prosecutor cannot be required to identify the rapist because "[i]t is not possible on this record to determine whether the prosecutor had ascertained the identity of the prior alleged rapist." However, in opposing the motion to reveal the identity of the individual Egan alleged had previously raped her, both in its response to defendant's motion and its argument at the hearing, the State never argued that the prosecutor did not have that information. The State cannot now argue to this court that it did not have the information and use this as a basis to avoid the application of rule 16(a).
2. The trial court need not hold a lengthy hearing; it only needs to hear enough evidence to permit it to determine whether the admissible evidence would have likely brought about a more favorable result for Martin if introduced at trial. If a new trial is needed, it need not be unduly protracted by the admission of this evidence. See State v. Larkin, 27 Utah 2d 295, 495 P.2d 817, 821 (Utah 1972) (stating trial court has discretion to limit evidence on collateral matters). The trial court has ample power to assure that the focus of the case remains on the current charges, not the alleged prior rape. See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 938 (Utah 1994).
3. In Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass'n v. Uno, 932 P.2d 589, 591 (Utah 1997), we required the Legal Defender's Association to provide the State with an index of its privileged documents so that the State would be aware of the documents and would be in a position to request additional information.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.