Utah Court of Appeals
What happens when defense counsel fails to interview a witness who contacted them before trial? State v. Strayer Explained
Summary
Lloyd Strayer was convicted of sexual battery after grabbing a ninety-year-old neighbor’s breast in their apartment complex common room. He moved for a new trial based on testimony from another resident who claimed to witness the incident but believed the contact was accidental. The trial court denied the motion, finding Strayer failed to demonstrate the evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence.
Analysis
In State v. Strayer, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant could obtain a new trial based on testimony from a witness who had attempted to contact the defense team before trial but was never interviewed.
Background and Facts
Lloyd Strayer was convicted of sexual battery after grabbing a ninety-year-old neighbor’s breast in their apartment complex common room. After conviction, Strayer moved for a new trial based on “newly discovered evidence”—the testimony of another resident, S.I., who claimed she was present during the incident and believed the contact was accidental. However, S.I. had written a letter to Strayer months before trial and had specifically asked his investigator to speak with her, providing her apartment number. The investigator never followed up.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Strayer demonstrated that S.I.’s testimony could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial. Under Utah law, defendants seeking new trials based on newly discovered evidence must show: (1) the evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, (2) it is not merely cumulative, and (3) it would make a different result probable on retrial.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial, applying an abuse of discretion standard. The court rejected Strayer’s comparison to State v. James, where reasonable diligence was demonstrated because counsel would have needed to interview fifty to one hundred prisoners. Here, interviewing a single witness who lived in Strayer’s building and had asked to speak with his investigator was hardly “an insurmountable task.”
Practice Implications
This case emphasizes the importance of thorough witness investigation. Defense counsel cannot claim newly discovered evidence when potential witnesses actively seek contact before trial but are ignored. The reasonable diligence standard requires following up on all witness contacts, even when initial communications seem tangential to the case.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Strayer
Citation
2021 UT App 49
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20191060-CA
Date Decided
April 29, 2021
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the witness had contacted defendant’s investigator months before trial but was never interviewed.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for denial of motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence
Practice Tip
When investigating potential witnesses, follow up on all contacts initiated by potential witnesses, even if their initial communications do not explicitly indicate they were present during the incident.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.