Summary
This Minnesota Supreme Court opinion reviews the denial of Brian Keith Pippitt's petition for postconviction relief following his convictions for first-degree murder. Pippitt argued that newly discovered evidence, including alleged witness recantations, constituted grounds for a new trial, and also raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court applied the Larrison test for recantations and the Race test for new evidence, finding that the proffered evidence was merely impeaching or doubtful, and thus insufficient to warrant relief. The court also held that the prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance claims were either barred by Knaffla or failed on the merits, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the newly discovered evidence presented by Pippitt satisfies the Larrison and Race tests to warrant a new trial.
- Whether Pippitt’s prosecutorial‑misconduct claim is barred by the Knaffla rule.
- Whether Pippitt’s ineffective‑assistance‑of‑counsel claim is barred and, if not, whether it is meritorious.
Holdings
- The post‑conviction court did not err; the new evidence was either doubtful, merely impeaching, or insufficient under the Larrison and Race tests, so no new trial is warranted.
- The claim is Knaffla‑barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal.
- The claim is barred by the Knaffla rule and, even assuming it were not barred, Pippitt failed to show counsel’s performance was unreasonable or that a different result would have occurred.
Key quotations
“We hold that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Pippitt was not entitled to a new trial based on Severson's testimony.” (227)
“We therefore hold that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Pippitt's prosecutorial misconduct claim was Knaffla‑barred.” (229)
“We hold that Pippitt has not met his burden of showing that he is entitled to postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” (230)
Factual background
Brian Keith Pippitt was convicted of the first‑degree premeditated murder of Evelyn Malin and of first‑degree murder while committing burglary during a robbery of the Dollar Lake Store. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on testimony from accomplice Raymond Misquadace, who claimed Pippitt participated in the killing, and from Peter Arnoldi, who said Pippitt confessed. The victim’s son, Merle Malin, testified about the store’s front door and dead‑bolt.
Procedural history
Pippitt was convicted of first‑degree premeditated murder and first‑degree murder while committing burglary. The Minnesota Supreme Court vacated the burglary murder conviction and affirmed the premeditated murder conviction. The post‑conviction court denied Pippitt’s petition for relief; the Supreme Court now reviews that denial.