Andersen v. State
2013 Minn. LEXIS 144
| Minn. | 2013Background
- Andersen was convicted by a Becker County jury of first-degree premeditated murder for the April 13, 2007 shooting of Chad Swedberg; the conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- He filed a December 2010 petition for postconviction relief asserting seven grounds for a new trial; the postconviction court summarily denied relief.
- Trial evidence included jail-recorded calls, firearms evidence (rifle concealed at a outbuilding), bullets matching a .30-caliber weapon, and expert opinions on bullets and palm prints.
- The State’s firearm expert relied on marketing material from Winchester; counsel did not object.
- Andersen argued newly discovered evidence, evidentiary issues, prosecutorial misconduct, discovery violations, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; the majority denied relief, and the dissent would have granted an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence standard | Bellanger affidavit could yield acquittal | Evidence unlikely to produce acquittal | No probable acquittal; no error in summary denial |
| Knaffla-barred claims | Claims should be considered despite direct appeal | Claims were known or raised or not novel | Claims barred under Knaffla rule |
| Confrontation Clause for expert testimony | Two BCA experts violated confrontation rights | No reversible error; evidence non-testimonial or harmless | If testimonial, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; overall testimony not reversible error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial and appellate counsel failures warrant relief | Waiver and trial strategy support denial | Claims meritless on face or barred; no hearing required per majority |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2010) (direct appeal affirmed conviction; postconviction relief barred by Knaffla or meritless)
- Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1997) (newly discovered evidence requires four-part test; hearing not needed if affidavit lacks substance)
- Scherf v. State, 788 N.W.2d 504 (Minn. 2010) (newly discovered evidence evidentiary hearing standard)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial vs non-testimonial statements; confrontation clause scope)
- State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 2003) (Strickland prejudice prong guidance in ineffective assistance)
- State v. Ihnot, 575 N.W.2d 581 (Minn. 1998) (right to testify; due process guidance)
- Davis v. State, 784 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 2010) (postconviction standards; evidentiary considerations)
- Knaffla, State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976) (Minn. 1976) (bar to raising previously known or raised claims on postconviction)
- Robinson v. State, 567 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 1997) (ineffective-assistance claims requiring extra-record evidence warrant hearing)
- Sanchez-Diaz v. State, 758 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 2008) (evidentiary hearing preferred when seeking postconviction relief)