Meinhard v. State

Decision Date23 March 2016
Docket NumberNo. 20140038.,20140038.
PartiesJimmy Dean MEINHARD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Utah, Respondent.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

371 P.3d 37
2016 UT 12

Jimmy Dean MEINHARD, Petitioner
v.
STATE of Utah, Respondent.

No. 20140038.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 23, 2016.


371 P.3d 37

Troy L. Booher, Beth E. Kennedy, Jensie L. Anderson, Salt Lake City, for petitioner.

Sean Reyes, Att'y Gen., Andrew F. Peterson, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.

371 P.3d 38

Associate Chief Justice LEE authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice DURRANT, Justice DURHAM, and Justice HIMONAS joined. Justice JOHN A. PEARCE became a member of the Court on December 17, 2015, after oral argument in this matter, and accordingly did not participate.

Associate Chief Justice LEE, opinion of the Court:

¶ 1 In this case and another heard at the same time, Gordon v. State, 2016 UT 11, 369 P.3d 1255, we consider important issues of first impression under Part 3 of the Postconviction Remedies Act (PCRA). Utah Code § 78B–9–300 to –304. In this case we consider an appeal from the denial of a postconviction petition for DNA testing under section 301(2)(f) of that statute. The district court denied the petition under that provision on the basis of its determination that the petitioner had not established that the evidence in question had the “potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence that will establish the person's factual innocence.” Id. § 78B–9–301(2)(f).

¶ 2 We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. We interpret the operative terms of the statute—in particular, the “new, noncumulative evidence” clause and the requirement of a “potential” for producing such evidence. Because we find the district court's analysis only partially in line with the law as we understand it, we reverse and remand to give the district court an opportunity to resolve the issues identified below in light of our opinion.

I

¶ 3 Jimmy Dean Meinhard was convicted of murder and tampering with evidence in a jury trial held in 1999. Those convictions were affirmed on appeal and upheld on multiple postconviction challenges in state and federal court.

¶ 4 Meinhard now seeks to challenge his conviction through a petition for postconviction DNA testing and, ultimately, a claim of factual innocence. The petition for DNA testing was denied in the district court. Meinhard challenges that decision on this appeal.

A

¶ 5 According to the evidence at the underlying trial,1 Meinhard and his victim (Ronald Peterson) were part of the same group of friends. Their group included Meinhard's wife, Terry Meinhard; Peterson's girlfriend, Dawn Downs; and Larry Taylor, who was living with the Meinhards. These individuals' personal relationships extended beyond mere friendships. Terry Meinhard was romantically involved with Peterson—purportedly with Meinhard's knowledge and consent. And before she was Peterson's girlfriend, Downs had been involved romantically with Taylor.

¶ 6 In February 1997, Meinhard asked Taylor to drive him to Downs's mobile home in Tooele, where Peterson had periodically been staying. The point of the drive was to confront Peterson about some missing tools that Meinhard thought Peterson had stolen—a thought that earlier had prompted Meinhard to announce that “he was going to kill” Peterson. Trial Day Three Transcript at 28–29 (Jan. 28, 1999).

¶ 7 Meinhard could not drive his own pickup truck because he had broken his left leg in a motorcycle accident a few months earlier and his truck had a stiff clutch. The accident was a serious one. It dislocated Meinhard's left shoulder, fractured his right arm, and caused a serious leg injury. The injuries to the arm and shoulder were serious but not permanent. By the time of the visit to Downs's trailer, Meinhard had regained almost full use of his right arm, and he had recovered sufficiently from the shoulder injury to terminate physical therapy about three weeks later. But the leg injuries were more permanent. Meinhard required reconstructive surgery with extensive pins and rods. This prevented Meinhard's ankle from bending, required him to walk with a cane, and made his injured leg turn outward when he

371 P.3d 39

walked. When Meinhard and Taylor arrived at Downs's trailer, Meinhard got out of the car and instructed Taylor to drive out of sight, but to follow Meinhard and Peterson out of town if he saw the two leaving in Peterson's car. Downs's neighbor observed Meinhard and Peterson arguing outside, heard a car start, and noticed later that Peterson's car was gone. As instructed, Taylor followed Meinhard and Peterson as the two headed south out of Tooele. When Peterson and Meinhard pulled to the side of the road, Taylor passed them and pulled off further up the road.

¶ 8 The evidence at trial indicated that Meinhard stabbed Peterson to death while Taylor waited. Peterson was stabbed first in the stomach, causing him to fall over the steering wheel, and then in the back, face, chest, and hand. He bled to death quickly.

¶ 9 Fearing that something was wrong with Peterson's car, Taylor turned around and began driving back. He then saw Peterson's car approaching and noticed that Meinhard was driving, though he could not see Peterson. Taylor turned around again and followed the car until Meinhard pulled off the road. Taylor then pulled the car he was driving even with Peterson's car, rolled down the window, and heard Meinhard say, “I did him in.... I killed him.” Trial Day Two Transcript at 155 (Jan. 27, 1999).

¶ 10 Meinhard instructed Taylor to follow him as he disposed of the body. Meinhard stopped the car and Taylor waited further down the road as Meinhard dragged Peterson's body up a dirt trail, covered Peterson in his own jacket, stabbed him twice more in the upper back, and left his body in the brush. Again following Meinhard, Taylor drove to where Meinhard abandoned the car, approximately three hundred yards from a side road near Highway 73. Meinhard got into Taylor's car covered in blood. He threw the knife he had used out the window, along with some of Peterson's personal belongings, during the drive back to Salt Lake City.

¶ 11 Upon returning home, Meinhard called his wife and asked her to come home from work. When Ms. Meinhard arrived, Meinhard confessed, “I killed Ron,” and threatened her and Taylor that if they told anyone about the murder, “he would kill [them], too.” Trial Day Three Transcript at 34 (Jan. 28, 1999). Meinhard was excited and happy while threatening his wife and Taylor. Ms. Meinhard related that “[h]is eyes were real [sic] big and shiny.' ” Trial Day Three Transcript at 35 (Jan. 28, 1999). Although Meinhard was normally very punctual to work, arriving every day at 4:15 p.m., he did not clock in until 10:00 p.m. on the night of the murder.

¶ 12 Three days after the murder, and during a heavy snowstorm, Meinhard asked Taylor to accompany him back to Peterson's car. The two went to the store at approximately 2:00 a.m., bought bleach and toothache medicine, and proceeded to the abandoned car. They found the car after a long search, and Meinhard told Taylor to wait for him further up the road. Meinhard then proceeded to use bleach in an attempt to destroy fingerprints and other evidence in and on the car.

¶ 13 Police found Peterson's car later the same day, but another day passed before police found the body. Blood evidence confirmed that Peterson had been killed in the driver's seat of his car and dragged across the console into the passenger seat before his body was removed and dumped in the bushes. Police found large footprints in the snow, footprints that clearly showed a “ ‘unique gait,’ the left foot being turned outward as much as 45 degrees.” Trial Day Two Transcript at 81 (Jan. 27, 1999). Police also found an empty box of toothache drops and the medication itself, although a different brand from the one police later found in Meinhard's possession. Police later analyzed Meinhard's shoes, which matched the tread found in the snow around Peterson's car and were much larger than Taylor's shoe size.

¶ 14 In light of defensive wounds found on Peterson's body, the medical examiner opined that Peterson died after a violent struggle. Police collected fibrous material that appeared to be dark hairs from Peterson's hands and a dried substance that looked like blood under the fingernails. The State sent the fibers found on Peterson's hands and a fingerprint found on the car's

371 P.3d 40

door handle for testing, but the print was too incomplete to identify anyone, and the supposed hairs turned out to be vegetation fibers. Additionally, the State performed DNA testing on the dried substance from Peterson's fingernail clippings, but the results showed no human DNA.

¶ 15 Taylor confessed his role in the crime and testified against Meinhard. Ms. Meinhard also testified against her husband, though she initially wrote a letter to Meinhard stating that she knew him to be innocent, implicating Taylor. Both witnesses told revised stories (different from the version told in their initial questioning by investigators), and both exchanged their testimony for dropped charges. Two other people testified to having heard Meinhard confess. A correctional officer declared that he overheard Meinhard tell other prisoners that he was in the facility because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • M.J. v. Wisan
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • March 23, 2016
  • MacDonald v. MacDonald
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • September 5, 2018
    ...But that cannot be what the statute has in mind—otherwise the statute would be a nullity, and we cannot construe it as such. See Meinhard v. State , 2016 UT 12, ¶ 33, 371 P.3d 37.¶ 32 In this sense the governing statute is underdeterminate. It articulates the governing standard ("not forese......
  • Gordon v. State
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • March 23, 2016
    ...and accordingly did not participate.Associate Chief Justice LEE, opinion of the Court:¶ 1 This case and its companion, Meinhard v. State, 2016 UT 12, –––P.3d ––– –, present issues of first impression under Part 3 of the Post–Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA). UTAH CODE §§ 78B–9–300 to –304. In......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT