Davis v. State
827 N.W.2d 8
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Davis appeals district court denial of leave to depose Cook and summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief (PCR) application.
- Davis was convicted in 2008 of aggravated assault; codefendant Stridiron was convicted of murder; convictions affirmed on appeal.
- Davis’s PCR alleged newly discovered evidence, including Price’s potential recantation; Price had not provided substantive evidence.
- Davis sought to depose Angela Cook to challenge Price’s trial testimony; he later sought to depose Graylan Bobo based on new information.
- District court gave Davis time to obtain competent evidence; ultimately denied leave to depose Cook and Bobo and dismissed PCR in May 2012.
- Court concluded Davis failed to present competent admissible evidence to support discovery and that the Bobo evidence would unlikely change the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying leave to depose Cook? | Davis argues Cook’s deposition could yield evidence of Price’s misstatement. | State asserts lack of competent evidence from Cook to support discovery. | No abuse; no competent evidence from Cook supporting discovery. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying leave to depose Bobo? | Bobo’s affidavit could support self-defense claims and recantPrice testimony. | Bobo evidence is hearsay/unreliable and unlikely to affect outcome. | No abuse; evidence would not likely change result; discovery denied. |
| Was the PCR properly summarily dismissed for lack of genuine issue of material fact? | PCR relied on newly discovered evidence; need discovery to develop material facts. | Record showed no competent admissible evidence creating a genuine issue. | Yes; no genuine issue of material fact established; summary dismissal affirmed. |
| Is the standard for discovery in post-conviction proceedings appropriately applied here? | Discovery should be allowed given potential exculpatory impact. | Discovery limited to good cause with specific, competent allegations; not met here. | District court did not err; good cause not shown for the requested discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. State, 750 N.W.2d 446 (2008 ND 109) (post-conviction discovery requires good cause and competent evidence)
- Ude v. State, 764 N.W.2d 419 (2009 ND 71) (burden shifts to petitioner to show competent admissible evidence)
- Overlie v. State, 804 N.W.2d 50 (2011 ND 191) (PCR not to releverage issues; standard for summary dismissal)
- Steinbach v. State, 658 N.W.2d 355 (2003 ND 46) (requirement that non conclusory evidence support PCR claims)
- Tweed v. State, 779 N.W.2d 667 (2010 ND 38) (newly discovered evidence must be material and likely to acquit)
- Greywind v. State, 689 N.W.2d 390 (2004 ND 213) (recanted testimony and existing record evidence considerations)