 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thirkield v. State8/1/2000
HUSPENI, Judge
Appellant Keith Thirkield was convicted of first-degree aggravated robbery under Minn. Stat. ยง 609.245, subd. 1 (1996). He filed this petition for post-conviction relief, seeking a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, which consisted of an alleged confession from another person who claimed that he, not appellant, had committed the robbery. The post-conviction court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence was not credible and probably would not produce a more favorable result on retrial. We agree and affirm.
FACTS
On a Sunday morning in January 1998, J.N. was standing in a Minneapolis bus shelter when she noticed a black man wearing a black jacket and black pants cross the street. The man entered the shelter and stood next to J.N., mumbling to himself. J.N. left the shelter and stood by the bus stop sign. The man approached J.N. from behind, called her a "bitch," and knocked her to the ground. He struck her several times and grabbed her purse.
The man then fled on foot across the street. J.N. flagged down a passing police car, described her assailant, and pointed the officers in the direction that he had fled. The officers glimpsed a black man wearing a black jacket and hat running down an alley.
The officers drove into the alley and saw only one set of footprints in the newly fallen snow. They followed the footprints and found a purse hanging on a fence. One of the officers exited the squad car, jumped the fence, and followed the footprints through a yard. He jumped over a second fence and found a hat, neck warmer, and jacket lying in the snow. The officer also observed appellant running across the street. The officer believed appellant was the same man he had been chasing. He yelled "police" and ordered appellant to stop. When stopped, appellant was breathing heavily and had fresh snow on his shoes.
The officers returned appellant to the bus stop, where J.N. identified him as her assailant, but explained that he was no longer wearing the black jacket. She also identified her purse and confirmed that none of its contents was missing. One of the officers testified that while appellant was sitting in the squad car, he was "excitedly uttering that he was high [on crack and that] he took the purse from the bitch."
The court granted the state's motion in limine to admit for impeachment purposes evidence of appellant's four prior felonies. Appellant chose not to testify at trial, but called two alibi witnesses. The first testified that he was with appellant the morning of the offense, sitting in a car getting high on crack cocaine, and that he saw appellant being arrested after appellant left the car to urinate. The second testified that he saw a black man snatch a white woman's purse at a bus stop that morning, but that the man was not appellant. Both witnesses were impeached with prior convictions, including each giving false information to police.
The jury found appellant guilty of first-degree aggravated robbery. Appellant claims that before sentencing and while he was in jail, another inmate named Keith Gary confessed that he committed the robbery. Appellant moved for a new trial, citing this newly discovered evidence; the trial court denied his motion as untimely and sentenced appellant. Appellant thereafter filed a direct appeal challenging the denial of his new trial motion. He chose to dismiss that direct appeal and file a petition for post-conviction relief.
DECISION
I.
To prevail on a claim for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must establish that (1) at the time of trial, the evidence wa
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|