Gordon v. State
382 P.3d 1063
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2001 Lee Lundskog was murdered; eyewitness Gustavo Diaz-Hernandez identified Adrian Gordon as the assailant and surveillance video placed Gordon at the scene; Gordon was convicted of first-degree murder after a bench trial and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Years later post-conviction counsel obtained previously undisclosed autopsy-related handwritten detective notes (the "Notes") suggesting the instrument causing injuries had "more rough & uneven edges & surface" and referencing "Not Characteristic of 'Baseball Bat'."
- Gordon also learned the police had not preserved a blood-spattered cement fence panel found near the body; he alleged the panel might have evidentiary/exculpatory value.
- Gordon filed a PCRA petition raising three claims: (1) Brady violation for nondisclosure of the Notes; (2) due-process violation for failure to collect/preserve the cement panel; and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to discover/present the panel and rebut forensic testimony.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State: it found the Notes were not material under Brady (no prejudice), and that the cement-panel due-process claim and ineffective-assistance claim were procedurally barred (and meritless if reached).
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed: nondisclosure of the Notes did not undermine confidence in the verdict; the panel claim could have been raised earlier; and Gordon failed to show appellate-counsel ineffectiveness to excuse the procedural bar on his ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Gordon's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nondisclosure of autopsy detective Notes violated due process (Brady) | Notes were favorable/exculpatory and material because they suggested a different instrument/cause of injury and would have undermined key witness and ME testimony | Evidence against Gordon was strong; Notes would not have shown another perpetrator nor sufficiently undermine witness/ME testimony | Denied; Notes were not material under Brady and no prejudice shown |
| Whether failure to collect/preserve cement panel violated due process | Panel had rough/uneven surface consistent with Notes; failure to preserve was exculpatory and could have been raised only after Notes were discovered | Panel’s potential was apparent from trial photos/notes; claim could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal | Denied as procedurally barred; trial record made panel’s potential obvious |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not discovering/presenting panel or expert evidence | Counsel’s omissions prejudiced defense; new evidence (Notes) shows counsel missed exculpatory leads | Claim is procedurally barred absent showing appellate-counsel ineffectiveness; Gordon did not plead such a claim or meet Strickland | Denied as procedurally barred; Gordon failed to allege ineffective appellate counsel and did not overcome bar |
| Whether merits-review should be allowed despite procedural bars (miscarriage of justice/good cause) | Court should consider merits due to new Notes and potential injustice | PCRA amendments eliminated common-law exceptions; Gordon did not develop arguments to invoke exceptions | Denied; petitioner did not show statutory exception or preserve argument to overcome procedural default |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (defines Brady elements and materiality standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Brady duty extends to evidence known to police)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (favorable evidence includes impeachment material)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (Brady duty applies even without a defense request)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Tillman v. State, 128 P.3d 1123 (Utah standard on Brady materiality and confidence in verdict)
- Ross v. State, 293 P.3d 345 (standard of review for summary judgment and PCRA appeals)
- Pinder v. State, 367 P.3d 968 (procedural-bar analysis when facts supporting claim were known at trial)
- Kell v. State, 194 P.3d 913 (requirements for ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel exceptions to procedural bar)
- Johnson v. State, 267 P.3d 880 (procedural bar applies to claims that could have been raised earlier)