Killer loses testimony bid

OGDEN — A judge has ruled that death row inmate Doug Lovell cannot summon his ex-wife into court to be asked questions Lovell claims his former defense attorney neglected to ask during Lovell's sentencing.

Lovell pleaded guilty to the 1985 murder of Joyce Yost as part of an agreement in which he could avoid the death penalty if he helped police find Yost's body to offer some comfort to her family. However, Lovell was unable to locate it despite five police searches of the canyon where Lovell said he had abandoned her.

Lovell now wants to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he would never have pleaded if he knew he would get the death penalty. His then-defense attorney, John Caine, has testified Lovell was never promised he would not get the death penalty as part of the plea understanding.

A key component in Lovell's case is the fact that his ex-wife, Rhonda Buttars, visited him in prison wearing a wire and recorded him confessing to the murder. Buttars was granted immunity in the Yost slaying.

Second District Judge Michael Lyon during a three-day hearing in November listened to oral arguments regarding the attempt to withdraw the plea. Lovell wanted to call Buttars to the witness stand at that time, but Lyon ruled against it.

"I excluded her testimony (then) because her testimony is irrelevant, and I reaffirm that today," Lyon told Lovell.

The judge said Buttars' testimony about what she knew and did regarding this crime, and possibly others, might have some bearing on the penalty phase of Lovell's case but has nothing to do with what occurred during plea negotiations.

Defense attorney Ryan Bushell said before Lovell entered his guilty plea, he talked with Caine about a series of unwritten questions Lovell wanted his ex-wife to be asked, especially regarding her involvement in this crime and others. But Caine erred by not asking those questions, Bushell said.

However, deputy Utah Attorney General Thomas Brunker argued that Buttars had merely testified as to her level of involvement in the case and there is no indication that if Caine had asked certain questions that Buttars would have changed her testimony.

Lyon said in his ruling that Caine apparently made a professional judgment not to ask all of Lovell's questions. Lyon also said Lovell previously had the opportunity to correct the record and allow the sentencing judge to know about Buttars' involvement in anything connected with the case. "Miss Buttars' testimony has nothing to do with the plea process but with penalty phase."

---

E-mail: lindat@desnews.com