Case Name: Fay WARD, Jr., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John TURNER, Warden Utah State Prison, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1961-10-26
Citations: 12 Utah 2d 310
Docket Number: No. 9422
Parties: Fay WARD, Jr., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John TURNER, Warden Utah State Prison, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: McDonough, j., concurs.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 12
Pages: 310–316

Head Matter:
366 P.2d 72
Fay WARD, Jr., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John TURNER, Warden Utah State Prison, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 9422.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Oct. 26, 1961.
Walter L. Budge, Atty. Gen., Ronald N. Boyce, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Glenn C. Hanni, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

Opinion:
WADE, Chief Justice.
Defendant Turner, State Prison Warden, appeals from a special writ judgment in the Third Judicial District Court ordering plaintiff Ward's release from the prison for lack of due process of law occurring during his trial. He was serving a term under a conviction in the' Second Judicial District Court of rape. Such conviction was affirmed by this court on appeal, where a more detailed statement of the facts is available.
A young mother of three children, the youngest just recently born, was attacked by a strange man at her home about 4 o'clock in the morning, after her husband had gone to work. At the special writ hearing this woman testified that she was first raped by force, then her attacker, with force, committed sodomy by sexual penetration of her rectum. At that time she was not acquainted with Ward, but identified him as her attacker some time later while he was being held in jail in connection with another charge. Ward's defense was that he was not her attacker and he tried to prove an alibi.
In the trial of the special writ the evidence showed that Dr. Ross, who examined the assaulted woman on the same day after the attack, wrote in his office record that he found "markedly reddened skin around the vaginal and rectal areas." Later in talking to members of the police force, he gave the impression that the vaginal as well as the anal intercourse had been perpetrated, and he ended a letter to the police department with this statement: "Diagnosis : Rape by a sodomist." Dr. Ross testified in the special writ hearing that be fore Ward's trial for rape he told Mr. Newey, the assistant district attorney who was in charge of the prosecution, that the assaulted woman "had been 'criminally assaulted' from anus or sodomy" and Newey advised him that Ward was charged with rape and not sodomy; so in his testimony, "without perjury," he should only mention sodomy if expressly asked about it. Dr. Ross further testified that he told Newey that he could not say whether rape had been committed, but felt that it had not, and that he thought Newey understood that such was his feeling, but that he was certain that sodomy had been forcibly committed. Newey testified that his impression was that the doctor thought both rape and sodomy had been forcibly committed.
Also in the special writ hearing, Dr. Branch, head of psychiatry at the University of Utah, testified that he and his assistants had questioned and subjected Ward to tests which disclosed him to be sexually normal and not a deviate or pervert. The doctor pointed out many kinds of sexual perverts and deviates; that the tests were fairly accurate in disclosing deviational tendencies and interests. He expressed his opinion as an expert that a normal person, as the tests indicated Ward was, would not after forcibly committing rape on a woman then proceed to forcibly commit sodomy by rectal penetration. He opined that only a sexual pervert or deviate with a strong interest in that kind of sex deviational interests would do such a thing, and that such deviational interests, would be disclosed by the tests given. He-concluded that it was very unlikely that. Ward, in whom the tests disclosed no-sodomy interests, was the person who assaulted and forcibly committed the sodomy-charged.
The trial court found that Mr. Newey and Dr. Ross had probably misunderstood' each other, but that no false testimony had' been given. He concluded that Ward in-his prosecution for rape was entitled to-have disclosed to him and his attorney that sodomy had been committed, and that had this been done, he probably would have-been acquitted. On these premises the trial court found a lack of due process of law in the trial in which Ward was convicted and ordered Ward's release from prison., The State appeals from this judgment.
We conclude that the judgment must be-•reversed for lack of substantial evidence-which would reasonably indicate that had the evidence of sodomy been disclosed to-defendant before trial, he would probably have been acquitted.
A prosecuting attorney should do his. best to convict the guilty and free the innocent. If he has evidence favorable to-the defendant which is not available to the •defense, he should make such evidence available to the defense and not suppress it. If the prosecution suppresses evidence favorable to the defendant's innocence which, if disclosed, would have avoided the conviction, such suppression may be .grounds for freeing the convicted person under a special writ.
Where rape is charged the suppression •of evidence that sodomy was also committed unless it created, or substantiated, doubts that the accused was not the attacker, would not be evidence favorable to the accused. Such evidence might be inadmissible. Proof of sodomy, which is probably a more heinous offense than rape, would probably tend to inflame the jury •emotionally against the accused. Here the •complaining witness insisted in the special proceedings that both crimes were committed against her on the same morning. A clear showing that only sodomy was committed where only rape was charged might require an acquittal as a matter of law. But here there was ample evidence, that rape was committed, to support a conviction of rape even though sodomy were also •committed immediately thereafter. So the •evidence of sodomy would normally be unfavorable to the accused. Even the psychiatrist did not claim that a pervert would not commit sodomy immediately after committing rape.
We confront the problem of whether the expert psychiatric testimony justifies the order of release on the grounds that the prosecution withheld material evidence from the defense which, if revealed, would have materially affected the jury's decision on whether Ward was the attacker. Undoubtedly the psychiatric testimony has a bearing on that question. However, such evidence, assuming without deciding its admissibility, would have been merely cumulative and somewhat vague and might have been confusing and certainly would not have been controlling. It might even be doubted that the defense • would have used this evidence had it been disclosed, for the evidence of the commission of sodomy as well as rape might have weakened defendant's case with the jury by arousing their emotions against him as much as the psychiatric opinion evidence would have strengthened his case. In order to justify a release of a convicted person under a writ of habeas corpus or coram nobis, or other special writ, the evidence of his innocence must be stronger than would be necessary in the first instance in support of a motion for a ne'w trial, for such special writs are applied for after the defendant's conviction has been affirmed or denied on appeal, and in a sense they invade the usual rules for the finality of judgments. The most that can be said for this application for a special writ is that had the evidence been promptly disclosed it might have justified the granting of a new trial. In order to sustain the granting of a special writ in a case like this, something more is required than merely that the evidence might have justified the granting of a new trial had it heen promptly disclosed. So the order of the trial court releasing Mr. Ward from prison must be nullified.
No costs awarded.
McDonough, j., concurs.
. See State v. Ward, 10 Utah 2d 34, 347 P.2d 865.
. See 5 Utah Law Review 92-94; 33 A.L.R.2d Annotation 1421.
. See note 2, and Jordon v. Bondy, 1940, 72 App.D.C. 360, 114 F.2d 599; Cummings v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 15 F.2d 168; Ex parte Mooney, 10 Cal.2d 1, 73 P.2d 554.
. See note 2, and Ex parte Swain, 34 Cal. 2d 300, 209 P.2d 793.