Summary
The Montana Supreme Court reversed the denial of Cody Marble’s petition for postconviction relief based on newly discovered recantation evidence. The Court held that the district court improperly relied on the concurrence in State v. Beach and clarified that courts must apply the statutory standard in Montana Code § 46-21-102(2), considering whether the new evidence, viewed with the evidence as a whole, would establish that the petitioner did not commit the criminal conduct. The Court also overruled prior precedent to the extent it applied the fifth factor of the Clark new-trial test to postconviction petitions based on newly discovered evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court erred by relying on the concurring opinion in State v. Beach when denying Marble's petition for postconviction relief.
- What legal test applies to a timely postconviction-relief petition based on newly discovered evidence under Montana Code Annotated § 46-21-102(2).
Holdings
- The District Court erred by applying the Beach II concurrence's requirement that Marble affirmatively and unquestionably establish his innocence.
- A district court must apply the statutory test in § 46-21-102(2): whether the newly discovered evidence, if proved and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish that the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct for which the petitioner was convicted.
- The court overruled Crosby, DuBray, and Tyler to the extent they apply the fifth factor of the Clark new-trial test to a postconviction petition based on newly discovered evidence.
Key quotations
“We therefore conclude that a district court presented with a postconviction petition based upon newly discovered evidence shall utilize the very test set forth in § 46-21-102, MCA.” (¶ 36)
“We conclude that a district court shall apply the statutory test set forth in § 46-21-102(2), MCA, in determining the disposition of a timely filed petition for postconviction relief based upon newly discovered evidence” (¶ 39)
Factual background
In 2002, seventeen-year-old Cody Marble was convicted of sexually assaulting thirteen-year-old Robert Thomas in a detention-center shower, although Marble maintained that the encounter was consensual or that the alleged assault was fabricated. In 2009 and 2010, Thomas verbally recanted and then provided written statements saying the assault had not occurred and that he had been pressured to accuse Marble. Thomas later repudiated the recantations during a deposition and postconviction hearing, asserting that the assault had occurred and that he had recanted because the Montana Innocence Project lawyers pressured him and might assist with his own legal problems.
Procedural history
Marble was convicted by a jury in 2002 of sexual intercourse without consent and sentenced in 2004. After the alleged victim recanted in writing in 2010, Marble filed a petition for postconviction relief under Montana Code Annotated § 46-21-102(2), seeking a new trial. The Fourth Judicial District Court denied the petition in 2013, applying the standard articulated in the concurrence in State v. Beach, and Marble appealed.
Remand instructions
The District Court must reconsider Marble's timely postconviction petition under § 46-21-102(2), § 46-21-201, and the standards announced in the opinion.