New Trial – Prejudice

cassiejohnson//July 24, 2015//

Listen to this article

Appellant challenged the postconviction court’s decision on remand that respondent state’s failure to disclose a potential witness’s address prior to appellant’s trial on charges of aiding and abetting first-degree aggravated robbery was not prejudicial and that appellant was therefore not entitled to a new trial. The Court of Appeals noted that the potential witness was available and willing to testify, but the District Court found her not credible, and the Court of Appeals gives considerable deference to a postconviction court’s credibility determinations. The Court concluded that the District Court did not clearly err in determining that the potential witness’s non-credible testimony would not significantly aid appellant at trial. Affirmed.

A14-1988 Sturdivant v. State (Hennepin County)

Click for the full text

Tags: New Trial

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event