554 P.3d 988
Utah2024Background
- Michael W. Thompson was convicted in 2008 of two counts of forcible sodomy based on the testimony of his half-sister, A.T.
- Thompson’s defense at trial included an alibi supported by trucking logs and corroborating witness testimony; the State’s rebuttal expert challenged the plausibility of this alibi.
- After appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals found Thompson’s trial counsel was ineffective for not properly challenging the State’s rebuttal expert, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial. The State elected not to retry Thompson, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
- Thompson later petitioned for a determination of factual innocence under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act, presenting new expert testimony (Hornung) undermining the State’s trial evidence against his alibi.
- The post-conviction court found Thompson factually innocent based on the combination of new and existing evidence; the State appealed, arguing the court misapplied the factual innocence standard.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a factual innocence finding can be based on both new and previously available evidence | New evidence need only play a role; all evidence should be considered | Newly discovered evidence alone must be the basis for the finding | Court sided with State: Only newly discovered evidence can be the basis |
| Whether Hornung’s post-conviction expert testimony established Thompson’s factual innocence | Hornung's testimony, combined with other evidence, shows innocence | Hornung’s testimony alone is not sufficient to establish innocence | Hornung’s testimony does not clearly and convincingly show innocence |
| Interpretation of “based upon” in Utah’s factual innocence statute | Means new evidence can cast old evidence in a new light; doesn't have to be determinative | Means new evidence must be the determinative basis for innocence | Court agreed with State’s narrower reading |
| Whether the previous decision in Brown v. State still controls the factual innocence statute | Brown’s precedent still applies (all evidence can be considered) | Statute has since changed; now requires decision based only on new evidence | Brown abrogated by statutory amendments |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 308 P.3d 486 (Utah 2013) (previous interpretation of the factual innocence statute allowing factual innocence to be based on a combination of old and new evidence, abrogated by 2012 statutory amendments)
- Ashby v. State, 535 P.3d 828 (Utah 2023) (factual innocence petitioner must establish by clear and convincing evidence that they did not commit the offense, considering all the evidence but newly discovered evidence is key)