Carter v. Utah - Rule60(b)

Limits to additional evidence given under Rule 60(b) motions.

Carter v. Utah, 2015 UT 38.

Carter was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death in 1985. The testimony of a couple, the Tovars, was integral to the conviction. They testified that they received nothing in exchange for their testimony other that the standard $14 fee for court-ordered witnesses. In 2011 the Tovars indicated that during the trial, decades earlier, the Police had given them various forms of remuneration. Carter made several motions with regard to this "new" evidence.

The District court denied Carter's rule 60(b) motion attempting to overturn a denial of post-conviction relief. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed this ruling that the motion was made in an untimely fashion.

The Court clarified that rule requires that the motion "be made within a reasonable time, and the 60(b)(6) exception may be used only if the ground asserted for relief is not "one other than those listed" in the preceding subsection. This is to ensure that the ninety-day limitation for submitting motions is not circumvented. See Kanzee v. Kanzee, 668 P.2d 495, 497 (Utah 1983) (holding that because appellant asserted grounds for relief that were listed in subsection (1), the appellant was “not entitled to use [rule 60(b)(6)] to circumvent the three-month limitation”).

The fact that the evidence is new because of the prior suppression by the state is not convincing for the Court to rule in favor of his motion. The statute does not differentiate between various types of newly discovered evidence. Carter's 60(b) motion was brought more than two years after the judgment, long after the ninety-days had passed.

2. District court dismissed Carter's successive post-conviction petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the case-number was not assigned to the court. The Utah Supreme Court reversed this dismissal. The district court did have jurisdiction over the petition in question, regardless of the case number assigned to it.

“[T]he concept of subject matter jurisdiction relates to the relationship between the claim and the forum that allows for the exercise of jurisdiction.” Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28, ¶ 9, 234 P.3d 1100. The Court stated that "it has nothing to do with the case number assigned to a particular pleading." The assignment of a case number is a ministerial duty and does not effect the jurisdiction of a case and, if done erroneously, is a clerical error not a jurisdictional defect.

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Carter150220.pdf