878 N.W.2d 493
Minn.2016Background
- In 1996 Gary Bolstad was found dead from blunt force head trauma; a .32 caliber pistol and blood evidence later connected the weapon to the crime. Jason Bolstad (son) was indicted and convicted in 2003 of first- and second-degree murder and sentenced to life for first-degree premeditated murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 2004.
- Key trial evidence included recanted alibi testimony (Angie Letourneau), a cooperating witness (Billy VonWald) who produced the murder weapon under use immunity, vomWald’s ballistic match, and evidence of motive and statements by Jason wanting his father dead.
- Bolstad filed a timely postconviction petition in 2007; it was denied after an evidentiary hearing in 2011 (no appeal from that denial).
- On October 2, 2014 Bolstad filed a second postconviction petition asserting (1) the district court erred in responding to a jury question about a first-degree murder theory (aggravated assault as predicate) and (2) the court should use supervisory powers to grant a new trial in the interests of justice.
- The postconviction court denied the 2014 petition without an evidentiary hearing as procedurally barred/untimely; the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Bolstad's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the postconviction court should reach merits of claim that a supplemental jury instruction removed intent element | Instruction misstated law and effectively directed verdict; merits warrant relief | Instruction was proper; claim is procedurally barred (Knaffla) and untimely | Untimely — petition filed well outside 2-year limit; court did not reach merits |
| Whether the petition fits the interests-of-justice exception to the 2-year limitations period | Claim is not frivolous and merits review under interests-of-justice exception | Even if exception applied, claim must still be filed within 2 years of when claim "arose"; here it arose at trial | Claim accrued at trial; Bolstad knew or should have known; exception does not save untimely filing |
| Whether the court should adopt a subjective accrual standard for the interests-of-justice exception | Accrual should be when petitioner actually learned of claim (subjective) | Precedent uses objective knew-or-should-have-known standard; no reason to overrule | Declined to adopt subjective standard; applied existing objective precedent |
| Whether postconviction court may invoke supervisory powers to grant new trial in interests of justice | Supervisory powers should allow new trial given alleged trial errors and integrity concerns | Postconviction court lacks authority to exercise supervisory powers; extraordinary relief is rare | Petition for new trial in interests of justice denied; no supervisory remedy granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bolstad, 686 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 2004) (direct appeal affirming conviction)
- State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (bar on raising claims post-appeal)
- Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2012) (accrual for interests-of-justice exception is when petitioner knew or should have known)
- Greer v. State, 836 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. 2013) (refusing to adopt subjective accrual standard)
- Roman Nose v. State, 845 N.W.2d 193 (Minn. 2014) (timing rules when direct appeal precedes postconviction statute)
- Perry v. State, 595 N.W.2d 197 (Minn. 1999) (standard of review for postconviction court rulings)