Can recantation affidavits from accomplices establish newly discovered evidence? Mulder v. State Explained

In Mulder v. State, the Utah Court of Appeals examined when recantation affidavits from accomplices can constitute newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant postconviction relief. The case provides important guidance on the high burden required under Utah’s Post-Conviction Remedies Act.

Background and Facts

Todd Mulder was convicted of murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping for his role in planning a coin shop robbery that resulted in the victim’s death. Two accomplices, Campbell and Schlegel, testified against Mulder at trial, describing his active participation in planning the crime, obtaining disguises and weapons, and acting as getaway driver. After conviction, Mulder filed a postconviction petition claiming newly discovered evidence based on Campbell’s affidavits recanting portions of his trial testimony and claiming Mulder was innocent.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether Campbell’s recantation affidavits satisfied Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(e)’s requirement that newly discovered evidence demonstrate “no reasonable trier of fact could have found the petitioner guilty.” The court also examined multiple claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, including failures to challenge jury selection, request cautionary instructions, and raise prosecutorial misconduct claims.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed summary judgment for the State on all claims. Regarding the newly discovered evidence, the court found Campbell’s affidavits lacked credibility because they directly contradicted both his trial testimony and Mulder’s own admissions. The recantation also conflicted with Schlegel’s testimony and physical evidence, including receipts showing Mulder pawned stolen gold coins. The court emphasized that under the PCRA’s stringent standard, the evidence must demonstrate that “no reasonable trier of fact could have reached the jury’s conclusion” when considered with all existing evidence.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the extremely high burden for newly discovered evidence claims involving accomplice recantations. Practitioners should carefully evaluate whether recanting testimony is sufficiently credible and compelling to overcome all other evidence in the record. The court’s analysis of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims also demonstrates that counsel is not required to raise every conceivable issue on appeal—only those that are obvious from the trial record and would likely result in reversal.