Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court has vacated the sentence given to death row inmate Douglas Lovell in an opinion published on Thursday.
Douglas Lovell, 67, was convicted in 2015 of the murder of Joyce Yost in 1985 and was sentenced to death. The high court upheld his murder conviction, but vacated the death sentence and sent the case back to the district court.
Investigators say Lovell murdered Yost to prevent her from testifying against him after he had been charged with raping her. Authorities said he tried to hire two other people to kill Yost before deciding to carry out the murder himself. He kidnapped her and killed her in a canyon outside Ogden. Her body has never been found.
The court decided Lovell's attorneys did not meet the standards required by the U.S. Constitution because they did not object or sufficiently respond to court testimony "regarding Lovell's excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and regarding the need for him to repent and demonstrate remorse" before he could potentially regain church membership.
"This evidence prejudiced Lovell's ability to have a jury fairly weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors, as Utah's capital sentencing statute requires, before it sentenced him to death," the court concluded. "Lovell is entitled to a sentencing hearing free from this improper and prejudicial evidence."
The conviction stands
Lovell argued, in asking the high court to review his conviction, that testimony he made in connection with a guilty plea in 1993, which was later vacated, should not have been admitted during his trial. The 1993 guilty plea and associated death sentence were vacated in 2011, leading to a trial and a second death sentence in 2015.
At the 1993 sentencing, Lovell read a letter asking the jurors for leniency before he was questioned by his attorneys and prosecutors. Here, he admitted to kidnapping and sexually abusing Yost, soliciting others to murder her and murdering her. He gave details about hiding her body, and about attempting to locate her body as part of his plea deal.
Lovell argued in the current case before the Supreme Court that this statement was allocution testimony, testimony asking for mercy ahead of a sentence, and should not have been played at his second sentencing, but the 2nd District Court ruled it was not allocution testimony.
The Utah Supreme Court did not make a ruling on whether the testimony should have been admitted, but instead ruled that it did not cause enough prejudice against him to make a difference "in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt."
According to the opinion, prosecutors showed that the jury would have convicted Lovell even if this testimony hadn't been brought before them through testimony from his former wife, and from an officer who had recorded other conversations where he admitted to the crimes.
Lovell's ex-wife, Rhonda Butters, testified about driving him to Yost's home after he said, "I'm going to do it tonight," and picking him up several hours later. She testified that Lovell told her killing Yost "was pretty easy," the opinion said.
Lovell's initial sentencing
During the penalty phase of Lovell's trial, jurors heard victim impact testimony from Yost's son, daughter and two granddaughters, two officers who investigated her death, a parole officer, and a prison supervisor who said Lovell is "manipulative, cold, calculating and controlling."
When Lovell's attorney, Michael Bouwhuis, presented his mitigation case he attempted to convince the jurors the man regretted his actions and had changed after 30 years of incarceration. They brought testimony from three bishops, the founder of an organization he donated to, a psychologist, a neuroscientist and multiple family members.
The first bishop said Lovell expressed concern for his actions many times. He was not asked by Lovell's counsel about Lovell's religious affiliation, but prosecutors brought up the topic of excommunication and about the process for being allowed back into the church — which he said requires showing remorse.
During a later testimony, Judge Michael DiReda said he thought some concepts discussed during the testimony of the bishops were not probative and were "out of bounds" but added, "No one seemed to feel that way, so I let it go."
The Utah Supreme Court's opinion pointed out times in the testimony where Lovell's attorneys could have objected and did not, and said the objections the attorney had were "misaimed."
It said the whole line of questioning was obviously improper and invited the jury to believe another entity — in this case, church leaders — had the responsibility of determining if Lovell was remorseful rather than the jury.
"This testimony encouraged the jury to not thoroughly consider Lovell's evidence of his remorse. By inserting a religious test for remorse into the proceedings, the State gave the jury a way out of making a decision that is difficult for any person to make," the high court said.
It said other courts have determined using religious arguments undermines the right to a fair trial and called the testimony from this first bishop "disastrous" to Lovell.
Lovell's case
Lovell's case was originally heard in Weber County's 2nd District Court; now his case will return to that court for a new sentencing hearing.
Attorneys discussed whether his conviction and sentence should be appealed before the Utah Supreme Court on Feb. 9.
Colleen Coebergh, who represents Lovell on the appeal, said it means something to a jury when the defendant is not welcome in church. She said the discussion of church doctrine should be "absolutely inadmissible."
Mark Field, assistant solicitor general, said the attorney could have reasonably not objected to the comments because they had a witness who would share some religious testimony. The Supreme Court, however, responded to this by saying if the attorney intended to bring in religion, there were additional topics in Lovell's favor that were not brought up.
This is the second time the Utah Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Lovell. In 2011, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the district court failed to comply with requirements to inform Lovell of the rights he waived by pleading guilty, of his right to appeal or of the time limit to withdraw his plea.
This ruling led to his second trial and sentencing.
