PROVO, Utah — The Utah Court of Appeals has overturned a dismissal of a second trial of Provo man, which came after trial court staff lost the audio recording of the original court proceedings.
In a court opinion released Thursday, the court called for a new trial of Miguel David Gedo, who was originally convicted of two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery after a two-day jury trial in 2020. The offenses occurred across two days at the end of June 2017, where Gedo allegedly "inappropriately touched a woman who worked under his supervision."
Following the conviction, Gedo filed a motion seeking new counsel, arguing that his lawyer failed to meet with him "in person until one hour before trial," and further argued the lawyer failed to raise certain objections.
This included the prosecution introducing certain pieces of evidence Gedo argued hadn't been properly disclosed, the seating on several jurors, and certain statements made during closing arguments.
After a new lawyer was appointed, they requested a transcript and recording of the original trial. After two weeks, court staff reported that they were unable to locate the recording, stating in an email that "the loss of the trial transcript was an error on the part of the [trial] court.”
This prompted a motion for a new trial, with Gedo arguing that the lack of a complete record made it impossible to determine whether his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated.
The court initially granted the new trial, scheduling it for April 25, 2023. Just one day before the new date, Gedo filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the statute of limitations on the offenses had run out. That dismissal was granted, on the grounds the case was untimely filed, prompting Provo City to appeal both that dismissal and the order granting a new trial.
In the opinion, Judge Ryan Harris sided with Provo City when it came to the dismissal of the second trial, noting that the original proceedings suspended the statute of limitations.
Provo City had first filed charges in October 2017, but the initial charges were dismissed without prejudice on November 21, 2019. The city then refiled charges that same day.
"In the City’s view," Harris writes. "its refiling of the case in November 2019 was timely because at that point, only about four months (plus perhaps one day) of the two-year limitations period had run."
When it came to the appeal over the motion granting the new trial, Harris sided with Gedo, noting how the trial court admitted fault when it came to lost recording of the original trial.
"Here, all parties agree that an error or impropriety occurred during Gedo’s trial: the court did not make (or later lost) any audio recording of the trial, and no such recording currently exists," Harris writes. "The trial court determined that this error had a substantial adverse effect on Gedo’s rights and that Gedo was therefore entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice."
At time of reporting, a new trial date has yet to be set.
