Mulder v. State
385 P.3d 708
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2003 Mulder, an acquaintance Campbell, and Mulder’s girlfriend Schlegel planned and executed a robbery of a coin shop; Campbell entered, shot and later killed the victim; Mulder admitted involvement in planning and helped with disguise and later shared in proceeds.
- Campbell and Schlegel testified against Mulder at trial; the State introduced corroborating physical evidence (e.g., pawn receipt) and surveillance video; Mulder was convicted of murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping.
- Mulder appealed; appellate court affirmed. In 2010 Mulder filed a PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate and trial counsel and submitting two affidavits from Campbell recanting his trial testimony as newly discovered evidence.
- The district court limited response scope, the State moved for summary judgment, and the court granted summary judgment for the State on all claims. Mulder appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed (summary-judgment standard) and affirmed: Campbell’s recantations were not credible or sufficiently exculpatory when viewed with other evidence; multiple appellate-ineffective-assistance claims lacked merit because omitted claims were not obvious or prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Mulder's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence (Campbell recantation) | Campbell’s affidavits show Mulder was innocent and Campbell acted alone; should warrant postconviction relief | Recantations conflict with Campbell’s trial testimony, Mulder’s and Schlegel’s testimony, and physical evidence; not credible or dispositive | Denied — recantations do not show that no reasonable trier of fact could convict (PCRA standard not met) |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for omitting claim that trial counsel should have requested cautionary accomplice instruction | Counsel should have argued trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a cautionary instruction for accomplice testimony | Accomplice testimony was corroborated and jury received general credibility instructions and extensive impeachment material; instruction discretionary | Denied — omission not deficient or prejudicial; claim lacked merit |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for omitting claim that prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony (Schlegel regarding seeing a gun) | Schlegel’s testimony about a large gun was allegedly false and prosecutor knew it; omission prejudiced Mulder | Record doesn’t prove Schlegel’s testimony was false or that prosecutor knew it; other evidence implicated Mulder regardless of this testimony | Denied — no record basis to show knowing presentation of false testimony or prejudice |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for omitting jury-selection and juror-bias claims (religion-based questioning/exclusion; failure to strike jurors; incomplete voir dire transcript) | Counsel should have challenged lack of voir dire on religion, unconstitutional exclusion of non-LDS, failure to strike biased jurors, and transcript gaps | Voir dire strategy is discretionary; religion was not clearly relevant; challenged jurors were adequately probed and not shown actually biased; transcript gap not shown unreconstructible or prejudicial | Denied — omissions not obviously meritorious; Mulder failed to show deficient performance or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance + prejudice)
- State v. Schreuder, 726 P.2d 1215 (Utah 1986) (false testimony by witness requires reversal only if prosecution knew of falsity and likely affected jury)
- Taylor v. State, 270 P.3d 471 (Utah 2012) (PCRA standard: newly discovered evidence must demonstrate no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt)
- Lafferty v. State, 175 P.3d 530 (Utah 2007) (appellate counsel ineffective for omitting claim only if issue obvious from record and would likely result in reversal)
- Medel v. State, 184 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2008) (newly discovered evidence merits relief only if it would create a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Taylor, 664 P.2d 439 (Utah 1983) (incomplete voir dire transcript can require remand when record cannot be reconstructed and prejudice shown)