Opinion ID: 1811743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did Turnage Satisfy the Fourth Rainer Factor for Newly Discovered Evidence?

Text: Similarly, the recantation statement is not, by itself, sufficient to warrant a new trial under Rainer. But the more difficult question is whether it meets the much lower threshold to warrant an evidentiary hearing. The practical consequence of the failure of the postconviction court to provide an evidentiary hearing likely is that we must either determine that the newly discovered evidence is insufficient to present genuine issues of material fact or we must assume, for purposes of a Rainer analysis, that the newly discovered evidence is true. Clearly, Quantez's new exculpatory testimony is relevant and material and we could not conclude that the trial record conclusively shows that the new exculpatory testimony is false. See, e.g., Ferguson v. State, 645 N.W.2d 437, 446 (Minn.2002). And if we assume that Quantez's new exculpatory testimony is true, the conclusion that a jury probably would not have acquitted Turnage if it had heard the exculpatory testimony is not clear, even though the Rainer standard that Turnage must meet is higher than the Larrison standard. The potential impact on the jury of the testimony of an admitted perpetrator that the defendant was not present during the commission of the crime would necessarily be greater than the impact of the failure of that perpetrator to testify at all. The majority interprets Quantez's recantation statement somewhat differently, concluding that it does not include specific factual exculpatory evidence. I agree that the recantation statement is minimal and also somewhat ambiguous. For example, when Quantez writes that his trial testimony was lies, it is unclear whether he is referring to all of the testimony, including his description of his role in the crime, or just his testimony implicating Turnage. But, in my view, that ambiguity underscores the need for an evidentiary hearing to sort out what Quantez currently claims is the truth. Because Quantez pleaded guilty for his involvement in the murder, and is currently serving a prison sentence under the resulting conviction, I would not read his statement to mean that he now denies his own involvement. I read his further statement, that Turnage had no knowledge of the crime, when made by someone who has previously admitted being present for the crime, to be a factual statement, albeit phrased in a conclusory manner. I recognize that the newly discovered evidence presented in Wilson v. State was stronger than that presented herethree eyewitnesses whose proposed testimony would exculpate the defendant. But I am drawn to the same conclusion that we reached in Wilson that the newly discovered evidence was sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing in order to fully develop the Rainer factors, including credibility determinations. 726 N.W.2d at 107. And, because the Larrison and Rainer issues arise from the single recantation statement of Quantez and are necessarily interrelated, I would remand to the postconviction court for an evidentiary hearing on both aspects of the recantation statement. ANDERSON, Paul H., J. (dissenting).