McDonough v. State
2013 Minn. LEXIS 138
| Minn. | 2013Background
- McDonough was appealing the postconviction court’s denial of his fifth petition for postconviction relief after prior denials on four petitions.
- On direct appeal, McDonough was convicted of first-degree murder of Reginald Rodgers and attempted first-degree murder of Steven Crenshaw; convictions affirmed in 2001.
- The 1999 crime involved a drive-by shooting; Rodgers died, Crenshaw survived and identified McDonough as the shooter.
- In his fifth petition (filed June 27, 2011), McDonough sought relief based on alleged newly discovered evidence (affidavits from Donald Crenshaw) and a constitutional challenge to the conviction statute.
- The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing; Donald testified about Steven Crenshaw’s alleged recantation, while Steven reaffirmed his trial testimony.
- In January 2012, McDonough amended the petition to add Eddie Crenshaw’s affidavit; the court denied relief in February 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence showed false testimony under Larrison. | McDonough argues Donald’s affidavit and Eddie’s statements show Steven lied. | The court found Steven credible and that the evidence did not satisfy Larrison. | Not satisfied; credibility determinations support denial. |
| Whether the January 2012 amendment required an evidentiary hearing. | McDonough sought an evidentiary hearing on Eddie’s affidavit. | Court treated amendment as improper // summary dismissal. | Court properly denied relief; no new evidentiary hearing required on that basis. |
| Whether the statute under which McDonough was convicted is unconstitutional for requiring inconsistent mental states. | Constitutional challenge under § 609.185(a)(3). | Claim barred by time limits; no timely exception rationale. | Time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c); interests-of-justice exception not timely. |
| Whether the timeliness issue was properly decided given Larrison proceeding. | Timeliness and Larrison should be evaluated. | Timeliness issues not raised by State at issue. | Timeliness resolved against McDonough; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928) (basis for newly discovered evidence standard)
- Ferguson v. State, 645 N.W.2d 437 (Minn. 2002) (applies Larrison framework to false testimony claims)
- Sutherlin v. State, 574 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. 1998) (Larrison framework prerequisites)
- Opsahl v. State, 710 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. 2006) (credibility determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2012) (timeliness under exceptions to postconviction time bar)
- Buckingham v. State, 799 N.W.2d 229 (Minn. 2011) (abuse of discretion in postconviction relief decisions)
- Hokanson v. State, 821 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. 2012) (standard of review for postconviction findings)
- Opsahl v. State, 710 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. 2006) (see above)