Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the summary dismissal of Shane Pierson's petition for postconviction relief. The court held that alleged accomplice testimony was not newly discovered evidence warranting relief, that Pierson's challenge to the admission of Spreigl evidence was procedurally barred, and that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise either issue. The court concluded that the Spreigl evidence was properly admitted and that none of Pierson's claims warranted an evidentiary hearing or a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether alleged testimony by accomplice Shane Smith constituted newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial or an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether Pierson's challenge to the admission of Spreigl evidence was procedurally barred because it was known or should have been known and was not raised on direct appeal.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the newly discovered evidence and Spreigl-evidence claims on direct appeal.
Holdings
- Pierson was not entitled to postconviction relief, a new trial, or an evidentiary hearing based on Smith's proposed testimony because he failed to establish that the substance of the testimony was unknown at trial, that it was sufficiently credible and material, or that it would probably produce an acquittal or more favorable result.
- Pierson's challenge to the admission of Spreigl evidence was procedurally barred because he knew or should have known of the issue when he pursued his direct appeal and no exception to the procedural bar applied.
- Pierson did not establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel was not deficient for declining to raise meritless claims, and Pierson could not show that the outcome of his direct appeal would have been different.
Key quotations
“Newly discovered evidence can serve as the basis for a new trial only when the petitioner proves that: (1) the evidence was not known to the defendant or counsel at the time of trial; (2) the failure to learn of the evidence prior to trial was not due to a lack of diligence; (3) the evidence is material, not merely impeaching, cumulative, or doubtful; and (4) the evidence will probably produce either an acquittal or a more favorable result.” (577)
“Any claim known by a defendant but not raised on direct appeal will not be considered on a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” (579)
Factual background
Pierson participated with several accomplices in the robbery of Raymond Barnett and the shooting death of Dural Woods in Saint Paul. Witnesses identified Pierson as participating in the Barnett robbery and as taking property from Woods shortly before Woods was shot. The state also introduced evidence that Pierson participated in a similar robbery of Jerrold McWilliams less than two weeks earlier. In postconviction proceedings, Pierson relied primarily on testimony by accomplice Shane Smith, who asserted that the others had not discussed committing a robbery, and challenged the admission of the McWilliams robbery evidence.
Procedural history
Pierson was convicted of first- and second-degree murder and aggravated robbery. The Minnesota Supreme Court previously affirmed his first-degree murder conviction on direct appeal. More than five years later, Pierson filed a pro se postconviction petition asserting newly discovered evidence, improper admission of Spreigl evidence, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The postconviction court summarily dismissed the petition, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.