Opinion ID: 2641040
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the 1996 vacatur of mr. gressman’s conviction

Text: DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH HIS FACTUAL INNOCENCE A. The District Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment on the Issue of Mr. Gressman’s Factual Innocence ¶36 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Gressman’s widow based upon its finding that the 1996 vacatur of his aggravated sexual assault conviction was effectively a determination that Mr. Gressman was factually innocent. In essence, the district court ruled that the 1996 order vacating Mr. Gressman’s conviction collaterally estopped the State from contesting his claim of innocence. We hold that the district court erred because the 1996 order did not conclusively establish Mr. Gressman’s factual - innocence, as defined by the PCRA. ¶37 “The doctrine of res judicata embraces two distinct theories: claim preclusion and issue preclusion.” Buckner v. Kennard, 2004 UT 78, ¶ 12, 99 P.3d 842. “Issue preclusion, which is also known as collateral estoppel, prevents parties or their privies from relitigating facts and issues in the second suit that were fully litigated in the first suit.” Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 2008 UT 70, ¶ 28, 194 P.3d 956 (internal quotation marks omitted). Issue preclusion applies only if four elements are satisfied: (i) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; (ii) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical to the one presented in the instant action; (iii) the issue in the first action was completely, fully, and fairly litigated; and (iv) the first suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits. Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, 2012 UT 42, ¶ 23, 285 P.3d 1157 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶38 The second element of issue preclusion is not met here because the issue decided by the 1996 order—whether to vacate Mr. Gressman’s conviction and grant a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence—is not identical to the issue presented in the instant action under the PCRA—whether Mr. Gressman is factually innocent of aggravated sexual assault. See Jensen ex rel. Jensen v. Cunningham, 2011 UT 17, ¶ 49, 250 P.3d 465 (The final adjudication of a federal constitutional claim did not collaterally estop a plaintiff from making a similar claim under the Utah constitution because the legal standards governing these claims are not identical.). 16 Cite as: 2013 UT 63 Opinion of the Court ¶39 In order to obtain relief under the PCRA based upon a claim of factual innocence, a petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner did not (a) engage in the conduct for which the person was convicted; (b) engage in conduct relating to any lesser included offenses of the crime for which the person was con- victed; or (c) commit any other felony arising out of or reasonably connected to the facts supporting the indictment or information upon which the person was convicted. UTAH CODE § 78B-9-401.5(2); id. § 78B-9-404(1)(b).9 In other words, a petitioner seeking a factual innocence determination may not merely attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction or attempt to overturn an adjudication of guilt on technical grounds; the petitioner must affirmatively prove innocence of both the crime for which the petitioner was convicted and any related criminal conduct by clear and convincing evidence. ¶40 The district court that vacated Mr. Gressman’s conviction in 1996 did not apply the PCRA’s factual innocence standard, which was not established by the legislature until 2008. See 2008 Utah Laws 2298–2301. Instead, the court cited Utah Rules of Civil Procedure rules 59(a)(4) (grounds for granting a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence) and 60(b) (grounds for granting relief from a judgment or order, including for newly discovered evidence) as the basis for its order vacating Mr. Gressman’s conviction and granting him a new trial. In order to grant a new trial under either rule 59(a)(4) or rule 60(b), any newly discovered evidence “must be of sufficient substance that there is reasonable likelihood that with it there would have been a different result.”10 In re S.R., 735 P.2d 53, 58 9 Because these provisions of the PCRA have not been materially altered since Mr. Gressman’s claim arose in 2008, we cite the current version of the statute in this section of the opinion. 10 This civil standard for granting a new trial is different from the standard for vacating a criminal conviction due to newly discovered evidence under the PCRA. The PCRA provides that a conviction may be vacated or modified only if “viewed with all the other evidence, the newly discovered material evidence demonstrates that no reasonable trier of fact could have found the petitioner guilty of (continued...) 17 GRESSMAN v. STATE Opinion of the Court (Utah 1987) (applying rule 59(a)(4)); accord Kettner v. Snow, 375 P.2d 28, 30 (Utah 1962) (applying the same standard to rule 60(b)). The district court applied this standard when it ruled that Mr. Gressman was entitled to a new trial because he had produced “newly discovered evidence which is material” and “such evidence would have [had] a material and persuasive power and influence on the jury in considering the guilt of the Defendant[].” ¶41 The district court’s 1996 finding that a new trial was warranted is not equivalent to a finding of factual innocence because these two findings involve very different legal standards and resolve different issues. The grant of a new trial under the civil standard applied by the district court in 1996 requires only a finding of a reasonable likelihood that the defendant could have obtained a different result at trial if the newly discovered evidence had been available, while a factual innocence claim requires a convicted individual to affirmatively prove innocence by clear and convincing evidence. In other words, the former is finding that the State might not have carried its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas the latter is a finding that the convicted individual actually carried the burden of proving innocence by clear and convincing evidence. Because the question of whether to grant a new trial necessarily evaluates the State’s burden to prove guilt, while the question of whether an individual is factually innocent involves the convicted individual’s burden to prove innocence, the issue resolved in the 1996 vacatur proceeding is not identical to the question of factual innocence at issue in the present action.11 10 (...continued) the offense or subject to the sentence received.” UTAH CODE § 78B-9- 104(1)(e)(iv); see also id. § 78-35a-104(1)(e)(iv) (1996) (The same standard applied when the PCRA was first enacted in 1996.). The PCRA, however, did not control the proceedings that led to the vacatur of Mr. Gressman’s conviction because the act did not go into effect until several weeks after the district court vacated the conviction. See id. § 78B-9-103. And for the purposes of collateral estoppel, we must evaluate the legal standard the court actually applied in the prior proceeding—not the legal standard that would currently apply or even the legal standard the court should have applied. 11 The current version of the PCRA clarifies that the vacatur of a conviction based on newly discovered evidence is not equivalent to a finding of factual innocence and that the two claims must be (continued...) 18 Cite as: 2013 UT 63 Opinion of the Court ¶42 Moreover, the relief granted by the district court in 1996—a new trial to determine Mr. Gressman’s guilt or innocence on the aggravated sexual assault charge—would be inconsistent with a finding of factual innocence. Indeed, the district court judge that vacated Mr. Gressman’s conviction confirmed that he did not find Mr. Gressman to be innocent by commenting during the hearing that “I suppose none of us will ever really know if they [Mr. Gressman and his codefendant] are absolutely innocent of this.” ¶43 Because the issue resolved by the district court in 1996 when it vacated Mr. Gressman’s conviction and ordered a new trial is not identical to the issue before the court in the current action under the PCRA, the district court erred by finding that the 1996 order conclusively established Mr. Gressman’s factual innocence. B. We Do Not Find Alternative Grounds for Affirming Summary Judgment ¶44 Mr. Gressman’s widow raises several alternative arguments for affirming the grant of summary judgment in her favor. We find none to be meritorious. ¶45 First, Mr. Gressman’s widow argues that we should not review the district court’s application of collateral estoppel because the State did not preserve the issue by arguing against the preclusive effect of the 1996 vacatur order. This assertion is incorrect. At the summary judgment hearing, the State argued that the 1996 vacatur “is not a finding of factual innocence, and that is not a finding that the defendant did not commit the crime for which he was convicted.” See Warne v. Warne, 2012 UT 13, ¶ 19, 275 P.3d 238 (issue raised during a summary judgment hearing was preserved). Moreover, the argument advanced by Mr. Gressman’s widow misapprehends the preservation rule. Issues must be preserved, not arguments for or against a particular ruling on an issue raised below. See UTAH R. APP. P. 24(a)(5)(A). “An issue is preserved for appeal when it has been presented to the district court in such a way 11 (...continued) litigated separately. See UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104(3) (providing that a factual innocence petition may not be filed as part of a petition for postconviction relief to vacate a sentence based on newly discovered evidence); id. § 78B-9-402(5) (“A person who has already obtained postconviction relief that vacated or reversed the person’s conviction or sentence may also file a petition [for determination of factual innocence] . . . if no retrial or appeal regarding this offense is pending.”). 19 GRESSMAN v. STATE Opinion of the Court that the court has an opportunity to rule on [it].” Patterson v. Patterson, 2011 UT 68, ¶ 12, 266 P.3d 828 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, even if the State had not argued against the application of collateral estoppel, the issue was preserved when Mr. Gressman’s widow presented the issue to the district court by arguing for the preclusive effect of the 1996 vacatur, thereby giving the district court an opportunity to rule on the issue. A party may not raise an issue and induce the district court to rule upon it, and then argue the issue is not preserved in order to insulate the ruling from appellate review. ¶46 Mr. Gressman’s widow also argues we should not consider the State’s appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment because the State failed to marshal the record evidence in support of the “district court’s factual innocence finding.” See UTAH R. APP. P. 24(a)(9) (“A party challenging a fact finding must first marshal all record evidence that supports the challenged finding.”). But because a district court does not make findings of fact when granting a motion for summary judgment—finding only the absence of disputes regarding material facts—the marshalling requirement has no application here. See UTAH R. CIV. P. 56(c) (summary judgment appropriate only if there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”). ¶47 Finally, Mr. Gressman’s widow argues that even if the district court erred by basing its grant of summary judgment on the preclusive effect of the 1996 vacatur order, we may affirm on the alternative ground that the State produced no admissible evidence that would create a dispute of material fact regarding his factual innocence. We decline to affirm on this alternative ground because the record evidence before the district court demonstrated disputes of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. ¶48 Mr. Gressman’s widow supported her motion for summary judgment on the factual innocence claim with (1) Mr. Gressman’s verified petition for postconviction relief, in which he asserts in general terms that he is factually innocent, (2) Mr. Gressman’s parole hearing transcript in which he consistently maintained his innocence despite the fact that his denials of culpability could negatively affect his chances of being paroled, and (3) a DNA test report confirming that semen recovered from vaginal swabs performed on the alleged victim did not come from Mr. Gressman. The State supported its opposition to summary judgment with (1) the record of Mr. Gressman’s criminal trial, 20 Cite as: 2013 UT 63 Opinion of the Court including the alleged victim’s testimony that Mr. Gressman physically assaulted, fondled, and raped her; (2) the transcript of Mr. Gressman’s parole hearing in which the alleged victim contradicted Mr. Gressman’s assertions of innocence and again stated that he had fondled and raped her; and (3) an affidavit prepared for the factual innocence proceedings and signed by the alleged victim that once again affirmed her testimony that Mr. Gressman physically assaulted, fondled, and raped her and explained that the alleged victim was not sure whether Mr. Gressman had ejaculated during the alleged sexual assault and that the semen recovered from the vaginal swab must have come from prior sexual intercourse with her husband. ¶49 Because the district court found that the alleged victim’s affidavit also contained inadmissible statements that were argumentative or were not based upon personal knowledge, the court struck the affidavit in its entirety. Mr. Gressman’s widow argues that the State’s opposition to her summary judgment motion is based entirely upon the affidavit and that without it, the district court must accept Mr. Gressman’s sworn statement of factual innocence. But the PCRA requires the district court to consider “the record of the original criminal case and . . . any postconviction proceedings in the case” in making a factual innocence determination. UTAH CODE § 78B-9-404(3). The district court, therefore, must consider the alleged victim’s trial testimony and parole hearing statements, which contradict Mr. Gressman’s assertions of factual innocence. Since the record reveals that Mr. Gressman’s factual innocence of aggravated sexual assault or any related criminal conduct is disputed, we may not affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the alternative grounds suggested by Mr. Gressman’s widow.