Dobbins v. State of Minnesota, Minn.S.Ct., 9/16/2010. A jury convicted Mr. Dobbins of first degree premeditated murder for the death of Quintin Lavender. The state’s main witness was Myshohn King, who testified that Mr. Dobbins came out of a bedroom with a gun and shot Mr. Lavender. Mr. Dobbins, on the other hand, testified that while he was in the bedroom it was Mr. King who shot Mr. Lavender and that he had nothing to do with it. The supreme court affirmed Mr. Dobbins’ conviction.
Mr. Dobbins filed a post conviction petition alleging, among other things, that an affidavit from Darryl Harris says that Mr. King confessed to Mr. Harris that he had accidently shot Mr. Lavender then blamed Mr. Dobbins to get a better deal. The post conviction court denied the petition without a hearing.
The appellate court remands for an evidentiary hearing on the false testimony claim. The affidavit does not entitle Mr. Dobbins to a new trial – it does not establish that Mr. King’s testimony was false because this claim is supported only by the affidavit – but it does entitle Mr. Dobbins to an evidentiary hearing. This is so even though the affidavit contains hearsay statements that may or may not be admissible at an evidentiary hearing.
Scherf v. State of Minnesota, Minn.S.Ct., 9/23/2010. A jury convicted Mr. Scherf of burglary, theft and fifth degree controlled substance crime. The criminal complaint claimed that Mr. Scherf and one Ryan Hughes jointly committed the burglary and theft. Part of the state’s proof was evidence that right after the burglary Mr. Hughes showed up at Mr. Scherf’s house and told another person that he had stolen some property and stored it there. When Mr. Scherf arrived, he and Mr. Hughes talked privately, after which Mr. Hughes and the other person moved most of the stolen stuff elsewhere. The next day, police stopped a car that Mr. Scherf and Mr. Hughes were in, and found some of the proceeds of the burglary. Hughes skipped out after he pleaded guilty to the burglary and so he was not available to testify at Mr. Scherf’s trial.
Some time after his conviction, Mr. Hughes resurfaced. He also tendered an affidavit to Mr. Scherf that said that Mr. Scherf had nothing to do with the burglary. Mr. Hughes said that he did the burglary all by himself.
Mr. Scherf filed a post conviction petition saying that this affidavit was newly discovered evidence that entitled him at least to an evidentiary hearing if not a new trial. The appellate court says that it’s not newly discovered evidence because Mr. Scherf knew of Mr. Hughes’s existence and because he failed to establish that he didn’t know of the the substance of Mr. Hughes’s testimony at the time of trial.
Laine v. State of Minnesota, Minn.S.Ct., 8/5/2010. Mr. Laine called 911 to report that his girlfriend had fallen down the stairs and was unresponsive. Medical expert testimony didn’t support this claim and a jury convicted Mr. Laine of domestic abuse murder. He filed a post conviction petition in which he alleged that newly discovered evidence entitled him either to an evidentiary hearing or a new trial. First, he said that one of his ex-wives had other information that would make a difference in the outcome. The appellate court rejects this vague, unsupported claim; just saying that a witness now has different information than presented at trial doesn’t cut it.
Second, he claimed newly discovered evidence of a break in the chain of custody of the victim’s blood. This claim is Knaffla-barred. Third, Mr. Laine asserted that he had recently been diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Mr. Laine said that this would explain why he thoroughly cleaned the house before he called 911. The jury heard something of this during the trial so whatever he now has isn’t likely to produce an acquittal or more favorable outcome.
Finally, he said that he had medical testimony that would offer an alternative explanation for the death that would be inconsistent with domestic assault. He fails to fill in any details about this medical testimony, so it’s “argumentative.”
No comments:
Post a Comment