Petitioner Not Entitled to Post Conviction on Basis of Newly Discovered Evidence

Miles v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 12/11/2013.  Mr. Miles just can’t catch a break.  Back a while ago he filed his third post conviction petition, which he supported with an un-notarized statement from a significant witness, the gist of which could be characterized as new evidence.  The courts threw out the petition because this statement wasn’t a sworn affidavit.  Miles v. State, 800 N.W.2d 778 (Minn. 2011).

So, Mr. Miles went back and got the statement notarized and filed another post conviction petition.  The now notarized statement put the murder for which Mr. Miles had been convicted and on which he is serving time an another fellow.  The post conviction court first determined that this petition was not time barred because it met the limitations exception for newly discovered evidence.  Minn.Stat. 590.01, subd. 4(b)(2).  The post conviction court held an evidentiary hearing, after which it denied the petition.  The court found the testimony of the guy who provided the now notarized statement to be “poppycock,” applying the Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1997), test for granting a new trial on the basis of new evidence. 

The Rainer test requires that petitioner prove he is entitled to relief by only a fair preponderance of the evidence.  The state argued that the burden of proof should be “clear and convincing,” borrowing from the limitations provision in Chapter 590.  Chief Justice Gildea sides with the trial court on this one and says that the Rainer standard controls.  Applying that analysis the court upholds the post conviction court’s denial of the petition.