Pinder v. State
367 P.3d 968
Utah2015Background
- Pinder was convicted in 2000 of two counts of aggravated murder and related offenses; this Court affirmed in 2005 UT 15, 114 P.3d 551.
- Pinder filed a Post-Conviction Remedies Act petition; the district court granted summary judgment dismissing his claims.
- Pinder proffered new witnesses (Heaps, Alvarez) claiming Ruiz and Brunyer were the actual killers; the district court and this Court found them not credible.
- Pinder asserted due-process violations for knowingly presenting perjured Welch testimony and for allegedly falsified 911 recordings; discovery and amendment motions were unresolved when summary judgment issued.
- The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on new-evidence grounds, held the due-process claims procedurally barred, and found no abuse in denying discovery or the motion to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence viability | Heaps/Alvarez would prove Ruiz/Brunyer were killers and exonerate Pinder. | Evidentiary delay and cumulative nature render no difference to outcome. | New evidence not enough to overturn conviction; would not likely change result. |
| Procedural bar applicability | Some claims could not have been raised earlier; exceptions apply. | Claims were raisable at trial or post-trial; barred under PCRA §§78B-9-106(1)(c). | Due-process claims procedurally barred; not saved by exceptions. |
| Welch perjury claim and Hurst exceptions | Welch perjured testimony knowingly used; Gabler affidavit supports recurrence post-probation. | Welch claim available at trial; lacks showing of non-ineffective-assistance basis; Hurst exceptions not met. | Procedurally barred; no valid Hurst exception established. |
| 911-tape/date claim and discovery ruling | Date of a staged fight was manipulated; 911-tape analysis undermines trial baseline. | Claim could have been pursued earlier; discovery and amendment denials not abuse of discretion. | Procedurally barred; discovery/amendment denials affirmed as not abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gellatly, 449 P.2d 993 (Utah 1969) (newly discovered evidence criteria; Berry framework)
- Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511 (Ga. 1851) (classic Berry test for new-trial evidence)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (S. Ct. 1934) (due process prohibits use of falsified testimony)
- Taylor v. State, 2012 UT 5 (Utah) (procedural bar—claims could have been raised earlier)
- Gardner v. Galetka, 2004 UT 42 (Utah) (pre-2008 PCRA exceptions context)