Kenfield v. State, 377 P.3d 1207

Background

In Sept. 2008 a jury convicted Kal C. Kenfield of attempted deliberate homicide (drive-by shooting at the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office), three felony criminal mischief counts, and six misdemeanor criminal mischief counts for shooting at multiple Chester, MT businesses.
Kenfield filed two prior postconviction petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC); both were denied and affirmed on appeal (raising the same crime‑scene analysis complaints).
In Nov. 2015 Kenfield filed a third postconviction petition relying on a new, privately commissioned Skylark Technologies reconstruction analyzing trajectories of 3 of 10 bullets using Kenfield’s truck. He claimed this was newly discovered evidence showing actual innocence and IAC.
The District Court dismissed the third petition as untimely and barred under § 46‑21‑105, MCA (second/subsequent petition rule), finding the Skylark report was not newly discovered and did not overcome the evidence as a whole.
Kenfield also argued a Schlup gateway claim to bypass procedural bars and argued the charging process violated the (obsolete) 1889 Montana Constitution; the court rejected both contentions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Skylark report is "newly discovered evidence" permitting review	The new trajectory analysis (using his truck) proves actual innocence and IAC because prior recon used a different truck	The report analyzes the same evidence previously available; issues were known and previously raised; three‑bullet analysis cannot overcome guilty verdicts on all counts	Not newly discovered; petition dismissed under § 46‑21‑105; does not meet § 46‑21‑102(2) requirements
Whether Schlup gateway applies to bypass procedural time/bar rules	The Skylark evidence is sufficient new, reliable evidence to open the Schlup gateway and excuse procedural bars	The evidence is not new or reliable enough and was available at trial and in prior petitions; thus Schlup does not apply	Schlup gateway not satisfied; petitioner cannot pass through to relitigate IAC
Whether IAC claim can be considered in a second/subsequent petition	Counsel’s failure to present independent crime‑scene expert constitutes IAC	IAC issues were or could have been raised earlier; prior rulings found counsel’s choices strategic; § 46‑21‑105 bars repeating IAC claims	IAC claim barred under § 46‑21‑105(2); previously addressed and rejected
Whether charging process violated state constitution/statutes	Charging process violated the 1889 Montana Constitution	Montana adopted the 1972 Constitution; charging complied with current constitutional and statutory provisions	Charging process was consistent with the 1972 Montana Constitution and Montana statutes

Key Cases Cited

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (standard for federal actual‑innocence "gateway" to overcome procedural default)
State v. Beach, 370 Mont. 163 (Mont. 2013) (discussing Schlup standard and requirement of new reliable evidence)
Stock v. State, 374 Mont. 80 (Mont. 2014) (standard of review for denial of postconviction relief)
State v. Montgomery, 379 Mont. 353 (Mont. 2015) (district court jurisdiction and procedures for commencing prosecution under Montana Constitution)