Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
- The Utah Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Douglas Carter on Thursday, citing misconduct from officers and a prosecutor.
- Judges found false testimony from key witnesses, prompted by the prosecution, caused prejudice against Carter.
- Carter was convicted of murdering Eva Olesen in 1985 and was sentenced to death by two juries before his conviction was overturned.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court ruled Thursday that "serious" constitutional violations during the jury trial and resentencing for death row inmate Douglas Stewart Carter merit a new trial.
Carter, 69, was convicted in 1985 for the murder of Eva Olesen in Provo and has spent almost 40 years on death row. Now, he will get another chance at life.
"It is rare to see a case involving multiple instances of intentional misconduct by two different police officers ... and a prosecutor. But that is what the post-conviction court found here," the opinion says, referring to Provo Police Lt. George Pierpont, officer Richard Mack and prosecutor Wayne Watson.
After hearing arguments on the case on Dec. 15, 2023, judges said their confidence was undermined in both Carter's conviction and sentence, and they affirmed a district court decision granting him a new trial.
The state Supreme Court's opinion explained that no physical evidence tied Carter to the crime scene, but he signed a confession based on other evidence pointing to him.
During his trial, prosecutors relied on testimony from Epifanio and Lucia Tovar, who said they saw Carter just before and after the murder to corroborate Carter's confession. Years after his sentencing, the couple reported they were receiving money from police and were pressured to lie about the financial support and share a fabricated statement that Carter had said he planned to rape that night. They claimed police paid for their rent and threatened to deport their son if they did not testify against Carter.
None of this was disclosed to Carter's attorney, and the false testimony was not corrected by the prosecutor during trial, the Utah Supreme Court said.
Because of this, Carter asked for post-conviction relief, and the 4th District Court found there was "serious misconduct" from the lead prosecutor, lead investigator and another officer — ultimately tainting his trial and sentencing.
Carter's attorney, Eric Zuckerman, issued a statement Thursday praising the high court's ruling.
"Mr. Carter has spent more than 40 years behind bars because of an unconstitutional conviction rooted in police and prosecutorial misconduct — including the suborning of perjury before a jury of his peers. We are gratified that both the trial court and the Utah Supreme Court have validated Mr. Carter's claims. But no ruling can restore the four decades of freedom the state of Utah unjustly took from him. This decision underscores what has long been clear: Utah's death penalty system is broken beyond repair," he said.
The Supreme Court order states that Utah County attorneys did not challenge the court's factual findings or that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence when asking to review the order for a new trial. They instead argued the wrong standard was used to analyze whether the errors caused prejudice to Carter, claiming they did not make a difference.
The high court agreed that the judge's analysis relied on an incorrect standard but stated that there is prejudice against Carter even with the correct standard.
"There is no question that these numerous constitutional violations — suppressing evidence, suborning perjury and knowingly failing to correct false testimony — prejudiced Carter at both his trial and sentencing," the court said.
The killing
Eva Olesen's husband found her body in her home in Provo on Feb. 27, 1985. She had her hands tied behind her back and her clothing removed from the waist down. She had been stabbed 10 times and shot in the back of the head.
Carter was a suspect because he was identified by a witness in a nearby vehicle trespass offense and his wife rushed home after hearing about the murder to see if he was involved.
Carter admitted to police that he knew Olesen because she purchased Avon products from his wife, but he initially denied involvement in the killing.
During a divorce process the next month, his wife told police she suspected Carter may have used her missing handgun in the murder, and he had it that night when visiting Epifanio Tovar. She reported that Carter told her he and two friends went to the Olesen's home to steal a necklace, and he stayed in the car but was told when the men returned that Olesen was dead.
According to the opinion, Epifanio Tovar was arrested for obstructing justice after driving Carter to Wendover, "knowing Carter had committed murder."
Carter was later arrested in Nashville, Tennessee, where he was interviewed and signed a written confession admitting to killing Olesen.
Because of corroborating details in reports from the Tovars' and his confession, an officer was assigned in the months before Carter's trial to visit them a few times a week to ensure they did not leave town and could testify — which included providing them money for rent, bills and groceries.
Death penalty case
Carter was convicted in 1985 of murder, a capital offense, and the jury found two aggravating factors — the murder occurred during the commission of aggravated burglary and in "an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel or exceptionally depraved manner."
The jury determined the next day that Carter should be sentenced to death.
In 1992, he was resentenced to death by a second jury after the Utah Supreme Court vacated the death sentence in 1989.
The Tovars were not located before the sentencing trial, but portions of the same trial testimony were read to the jury in 1992, including testimony that Carter said he was going to "rape, break and drive" that night and that he was "laughing and giggling" while demonstrating the murder.
In 2011, Carter's attorneys found the Tovars in Mexico, and they signed a declaration saying they had been threatened with deportation or removal of their son. They said they were instructed to lie about financial support they got from police, reporting they got a $14 witness fee rather than $4,000, and that Carter said he was going out to rape someone that night.
Both of them testified during a four-day hearing in November 2021, leading 4th District Judge Derek Pullan to rule in favor of a new trial and sentencing; this week, the high court's order affirmed that decision.
