State v. Prater, 2017 UT 13

Background

On November 27, 2007 Vincent Samora was shot and killed after being followed from a 7‑Eleven to his home; bullets came from a silver Jeep. Anthony Prater was tried and convicted of aggravated murder, obstruction of justice, and multiple counts of discharging a firearm from a vehicle. The district court sentenced Prater to life without parole plus additional terms.
Key eyewitnesses—Ryan Sheppard (Jeep driver), Donna Quintana (Prater’s then‑girlfriend), and Sherilyn Valdez—testified at trial that Prater admitted the shooting, celebrated after Samora’s death, and instructed Quintana to discard his gun. Each had given inconsistent pretrial statements and admitted lying initially to police.
Forensic evidence (multiple 9mm casings and bullet fragments from the same gun; bullet hole distribution) indicated the shooter was likely the front‑seat passenger of the moving Jeep.
A letter found outside Prater’s jail cell, addressed to inmate “Red,” contained an admission tracking trial testimony (Prater describing following Samora to his home and abandoning the gun); Prater’s prints were on the envelope.
Additional inmate testimony (Ali Al‑Rekabi) described Prater confessing and drafting a false statement to blame Sheppard.
Prater appealed, arguing the State’s evidence was insufficient because its key witnesses’ trial testimony was “inherently improbable” given prior inconsistent statements and plea‑related leniency; the claim was unpreserved and urged under plain‑error review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to support convictions	State: Combined eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, letter, and inmate testimony provide ample direct and circumstantial proof tying Prater to the shooting.	Prater: Key witnesses’ testimony was inherently improbable (prior lies and plea deals), so no reasonable jury could convict; urges plain‑error review for unpreserved claim.	Affirmed. Court found testimony not "apparently false," substantial corroborating evidence existed, and no plain error.
Whether plea deals/leniency render testimony inherently unreliable	State: Plea deals affect credibility/weight but do not make testimony per se inherently improbable.	Prater: Witnesses’ favorable treatment undermines credibility to the point of insufficiency.	Held: Plea deals go to weight, not automatic invalidation; jury properly assessed credibility.
Applicability of the "inherently improbable"/plain‑error exception	State: Workman/Robbins framework applies; exception is narrow and requires either physically impossible/apparently false testimony and lack of corroboration.	Prater: Testimony here met the Robbins standard for being apparently false.	Held: Robbins and Workman require more—patently false statements or sole uncorroborated witness; this case had corroboration (forensics, letter, inmate confession), so exception did not apply.
Whether appellate review should reweigh credibility on appeal	State: Defer to jury as exclusive judge of credibility; appellate court will not reassess unless exceptional circumstances.	Prater: Jury’s reliance on changed testimony was unreasonable; appellate court should intervene.	Held: No reweighing—no unusual circumstances warranting departure from deference; appellate reversal not justified.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993) (jury is exclusive judge of witness credibility; rare circumstances permit disregarding inherently improbable testimony)
State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (clarifies "inherently improbable" test: testimony physically impossible or apparently false; court may reassess credibility only when material inconsistencies plus no other corroborating evidence)
State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (preservation rule and plain‑error standard for sufficiency claims)
State v. Powell, 154 P.3d 788 (Utah 2007) (evidence of plea bargains bears on witness credibility/weight)
State v. Boyd, 25 P.3d 985 (Utah 2001) (appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for jury credibility determinations)
State v. Nielsen, 326 P.3d 645 (Utah 2014) (appellate briefs must marshal supporting record evidence when challenging factual findings)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural guidance for counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous)