369 P.3d 1255
Utah2016Background
- Adrian Gordon, convicted of murder in 2002 (affirmed in State v. Gordon), filed a postconviction petition under Utah's PCRA seeking DNA testing of several untested items to prove factual innocence.
- Gordon's petition alleged compliance with PCRA pleading requirements and asserted he did not decline DNA testing at trial for "tactical reasons," but provided no further factual support in the petition.
- The State responded seeking dismissal, arguing Gordon had declined testing for tactical reasons (citing trial counsel’s cross-examination and closing arguments) and alternatively challenging the petition on the PCRA substantive elements.
- The district court dismissed Gordon's petition on the ground he failed to show a non-tactical reason for not requesting DNA testing, without permitting Gordon to file a memorandum in opposition or holding a hearing.
- Gordon moved for reconsideration and submitted a declaration claiming ignorance of testing and inability to afford it; the court denied reconsideration and Gordon appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gordon) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gordon was entitled to file an opposition to the State's response/motion | Gordon: Rule 65C and civil rules permit him to file a memorandum in opposition and he was entitled to that opportunity | State: Court properly dismissed without further briefing; motion practice not required | Court: Gordon was entitled to file a memorandum in opposition under Utah R. Civ. P. 65C and Rule 7; reversal and remand for opportunity to respond |
| Who bears pleading and proof burdens on "tactical reasons" defense (§78B-9-301(4)) | Gordon: Burden should rest on State to prove tactical reasons | State: Implicitly argued dismissal appropriate without further plaintiff showing | Court: State bears burden of pleading tactical-reason defense; petitioner bears burden of proof by preponderance to disprove tactical reasons |
| Meaning/scope of "tactical reasons" that bar testing | Gordon: Reasons like ignorance or inability to pay are non-tactical | State: Such reasons can be tactical depending on context | Court: "Tactical reasons" covers purposeful, strategic decisions by counsel not mere inadvertence or lack of thought; reasonableness is relevant to credibility but not dispositive; economic reasons may be tactical or non-tactical depending on facts |
| Proper next steps / disposition | Gordon: Remand for opportunity to oppose and for court factfinding | State: Affirm dismissal | Court: Reverse and remand; allow opposition and reply, then resolve on summary judgment or hearing/bench trial as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gordon, 84 P.3d 1167 (Utah 2004) (underlying direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)
- Gardner v. State, 234 P.3d 1115 (Utah 2010) (standard of review — de novo for legal questions)
- Menzies v. State, 344 P.3d 581 (Utah 2014) (Rule 65C(k) interpretation; answer vs. motion analysis)
- In re Adoption of B.Y., 356 P.3d 1215 (Utah 2015) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2005) (general principles on allocation of burdens of pleading and proof)