Opinion ID: 1835424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Preservation of Juror Misconduct Claim.

Text: Finally, Knox asks us to preserve for postconviction relief his claim that the jury foreman failed to disclose on voir dire that he was a member of Posse Comitatus. He argues that the issue should be preserved because it falls within the newly discovered evidence portion of the postconviction statute, which provides relief to applicants who can show that [t]here exists evidence of material facts, not previously present and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.... Iowa Code § 663A.2(4) (1989). Section 663A.2(4) requires the applicant to show that the evidence was discovered after judgment. He may not rely on evidence discovered after trial but before judgment unless he establishes an excuse for not having raised the issue in a motion for new trial.... Jones v. Scurr, 316 N.W.2d 905, 907 (Iowa 1982). Knox has failed to make this showing. There is no question that Knox discovered the evidence in question prior to judgment. In fact, he raised the issue in his motion for new trial prior to judgment. Knox requests that this issue nevertheless be preserved because, while the testimony of a key witness was known to him at the time of his new trial motion, he was powerless to present it. While we have doubts about the extent of this absent witness's unavailability, we will assume for these purposes that he could not be produced at the hearing. In Jones, we considered the question of whether evidence that was unavailable, but known, at the time of a hearing is to be considered as newly discovered evidence. We held that it was not. Id. at 910. Postconviction relief is not a means for relitigating claims that were or should have been presented at trial. Washington v. Scurr, 304 N.W.2d 231, 234-35 (Iowa 1981); Iowa Code § 663A.8 (1989). The defendant should have and did present his claim in his motion for new trial. The fact that he failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant a new trial does not preserve his claim for postconviction relief. Accordingly, we decline to preserve this issue for postconviction proceedings. AFFIRMED.