387 P.3d 976
Utah2016Background
- Danny Logue was convicted after a 14-day jury trial of aggravated murder, possession of a weapon by a restricted person, and obstruction of justice.
- Brandon Wright, a fellow inmate, testified at trial that Logue admitted the aggravated murder; the jury learned Wright had a lengthy criminal record and prior gang affiliation.
- Logue was sentenced May 14, 2015; his motion for a new trial was denied December 9, 2015; notice of appeal was filed December 28, 2015.
- While Logue’s direct appeal was pending, Wright confessed to a separate, unrelated 20-year-old murder.
- Logue petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for an extraordinary writ directing the district court to consider a new-trial motion based on this newly discovered impeachment evidence despite statutory/time-bar constraints.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition, citing pleading defects under Utah R. App. P. 19(b) and concluding Logue failed to show the new evidence warranted extraordinary relief; the Court asked the rules committee to consider rule changes.
Issues
| Issue | Logue's Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an extraordinary writ should allow a tardy new-trial motion based on posttrial discovery of impeachment evidence | Wright’s posttrial confession is newly discovered impeachment evidence that justifies immediate relief so Logue can seek a new trial before appeal exhaustion | Rules and statutes impose time limits; extraordinary writ is inappropriate absent a showing that standard requirements are met | Denied: Logue did not meet his burden to justify extraordinary relief |
| Whether Wright’s confession constitutes perjury or materially changes credibility for a new trial | The confession shows Wright lied or omitted a material fact, undermining his credibility and the verdict | The omission does not show perjury and is largely impeachment that the jury already could assess given Wright’s criminal history | Denied: confession would have only impeachment value and likely would not have significantly affected the verdict |
| Adequacy of petitioner’s compliance with Utah R. App. P. 19(b) pleading requirements | Petition argued need for writ but did not explicitly argue lack of other plain, speedy, adequate remedies | Respondents pointed to failure to state why no other remedy exists per rule 19(b)(4) | Denied: petition failed to comply with Rule 19(b), including omission of why no other remedy exists |
| Whether court should modify procedural rules to avoid a categorical bar to late new-trial motions during appeals | Logue implicitly urged recognition of a gap that prevents timely relief | Respondents noted existing rules and statutes; leave rule changes to rulemakers | Court declined relief but directed the rules committee to consider revisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Kettner v. Snow, 375 P.2d 28 (Utah 1962) (party seeking extraordinary relief bears the burden to show facts justifying writ)
- State v. Pinder, 114 P.3d 551 (Utah 2005) (newly discovered evidence not warranting new trial if merely cumulative)
- State v. Boyd, 25 P.3d 985 (Utah 2001) (newly discovered evidence generally does not warrant new trial when only for impeachment)
- State v. Worthen, 765 P.2d 839 (Utah 1988) (denying new trial when newly discovered evidence had only minor impeachment value)