McDonough v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 3/13/2013. For the fifth time this year, the Court reviews a denial of a post conviction petition. That’s five of eight opinions so far. Mr. McDonough is serving a life sentence for the first degree murder of Reginald Rodgers and the attempted first degree murder of Steven Crenshaw. Steven, who had known Mr. McDonough since grade school, testified that it was Mr. McDonough who shot and killed Mr. Rodgers and tried to kill him.
Years go by. Steven’s cousin, Donald, gives Mr. McDonough an affidavit in which he says that Steven told him that he didn’t see the shooter and that the police coerced him into saying that he did at trial. The post conviction court heard both Crenshaw’s testimony in support of Mr. McDonough’s fifth post conviction petition alleging Steven’s false testimony. The problem was, when it was Steven’s turn he stuck to his trial testimony. At least for a few days. After the hearing but before the judge ruled, another brother, Eddie Crenshaw, provided an affidavit in which he said that what Donald said Steven said is what Steven said to him.
No matter, the post conviction court denied the fifth petition and what it characterized as an amended (or sixth?) petition, basically concluding that Steven had little or no credibility. The court also concluded that Donald didn’t have much cred either. Justice Page, for a unanimous court, agreed, concluding that the post conviction court had not abused its discretion in its rulings. Mr. McDonough could not establish from Eddie’s affidavit that Steven’s trial testimony was false in the face of Steven’s hearing testimony at which he affirmed his trial testimony.
Mr. McDonough raised a constitutional challenge of some sort to the first degree murder while committing a drive by shooting. Justice Page agreed with the post conviction court that Mr. McDonough was too late in raising this claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment