The Utah Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court's decision to grant postconviction relief to Douglas Carter, vacating his conviction and death sentence for the 1985 murder of Eva Olesen. The ruling follows findings that the State violated Carter's constitutional rights through the suppression of evidence and the failure to correct false testimony during his trial in Provo.
According to the court's opinion, the Fourth Judicial District Court held an evidentiary hearing that uncovered serious misconduct by the lead prosecutor, the lead investigator, and a police officer. The court found that investigators had provided significant financial assistance to witnesses Epifanio and Lucia Tovar, totaling approximately $4,000 for expenses such as rent, groceries, and utilities, but failed to disclose these payments to the defense.
Furthermore, the court determined that police officers threatened the Tovars with arrest, deportation, and the separation from their son to ensure their cooperation. The investigation also revealed that witnesses were instructed to lie at trial. Specifically, the court found that the lead investigator coached Epifanio Tovar to testify falsely that Carter intended to rape, break, and drive before the murder occurred, a claim that was later retracted.
The prosecution was also found to have violated due process by failing to correct false testimony during the trial. Epifanio Tovar testified under oath that he and his wife received only $14 in witness fees, a statement the court found to be false. The prosecutor did not disclose the true nature of the financial support or correct this testimony when it was presented to the jury.
While the State argued that these violations did not prejudice the outcome of the trial, the Utah Supreme Court disagreed. The court concluded that the cumulative effect of suppressing evidence and allowing perjured testimony undermined confidence in the original verdict and prejudiced Carter at both the guilt and sentencing stages.
The Supreme Court's ruling effectively orders a new trial for Douglas Carter. The decision affirms that the suppression of evidence favorable to the accused and the failure to correct false testimony constituted violations of the defendant's constitutional rights under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.
