908 N.W.2d 724
N.D.2018Background
- In 2014 an informant working with Bismarck police traveled with Marcus Chatman to Chicago/Wisconsin; police later executed an anticipatory warrant and found heroin, cocaine, and marijuana in Chatman’s car and on his person. Chatman was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced on multiple drug charges.
- On direct appeal the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the anticipatory search warrant and conviction (Chatman I). Chatman’s first post-conviction application was summarily dismissed (Chatman II).
- In December 2016 Chatman filed a second post-conviction application alleging newly discovered evidence: the informant used an alias (trial name “Ashley Giles,” disclosed alias “Jyssica Noble”) obtained via an open-records request in 2016; he also pointed to pretrial emails involving defense counsel and the State.
- The State moved for summary dismissal; Chatman also moved to compel discovery of the informant’s texts and a detective interview; the district court granted summary dismissal without ruling on the discovery motions.
- The district court held (1) the alias/new evidence would not, when viewed with the trial record (including Chatman’s videotaped confession), establish his innocence, (2) Chatman had not shown good cause for post-conviction discovery, and (3) the anticipatory warrant’s constitutionality already was resolved on direct appeal.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed: Chatman failed to present competent, admissible newly discovered evidence raising a material factual dispute; he did not satisfy the post-conviction discovery good-cause standard; and challenges to the anticipatory warrant were precluded because they could have been raised earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chatman) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alias/newly discovered evidence (informant used alias) entitles Chatman to an evidentiary hearing | Alias and certain emails are new evidence that would show the informant could have claimed the drugs were hers, undermining Chatman’s conviction | Alias is not material enough given the trial record (including confession); emails were known pretrial by defense so not "newly discovered" | Denied — Chatman failed to present competent admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact; no evidentiary hearing warranted |
| Whether district court abused discretion by granting summary dismissal before ruling on discovery motions | Granting dismissal before ruling on motions to compel deprived Chatman of needed evidence (texts, interview) | Chatman never sought leave under the post-conviction discovery statute or shown good cause; summary dismissal applied proper legal standard | Denied — court did not abuse discretion; discovery in post-conviction proceedings is limited and Chatman failed to meet good-cause standard |
| Whether the anticipatory search warrant violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 41(a) because the object was outside jurisdiction when issued | Anticipatory warrant invalid under a strict reading of rule requiring object to be within jurisdiction when issued (citing Poirez) | Anticipatory warrants are generally constitutional; issue already decided on direct appeal; procedural challenge could have been raised earlier | Denied — claim precluded as previously decided on direct appeal; misuse of process to raise now |
| Whether emails between defense counsel and State are newly discovered evidence | Emails demonstrate prosecutorial misidentification and would have allowed defense to subpoena correct informant | Emails were created/known pretrial by defense, so they are not newly discovered | Denied — emails fail the "discovered after trial" requirement and do not support relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chatman, 2015 ND 296, 872 N.W.2d 595 (upholding anticipatory search warrant and underlying convictions)
- Chatman v. State, 2017 ND 12, 891 N.W.2d 778 (affirming summary dismissal of first post-conviction application)
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) (general constitutionality of anticipatory search warrants)
- Davis v. State, 2013 ND 34, 827 N.W.2d 8 (post-conviction discovery requires showing good cause and particularized allegations)
- Wacht v. State, 2015 ND 154, 864 N.W.2d 740 (standards for new trial/newly discovered evidence in post-conviction context)