State v. Barry Allan Beach
370 Mont. 163
Mont.2013Background
- Beach was convicted in 1984 for deliberate homicide of Kim Nees and sentenced to 100 years without parole.
- Beach repeatedly pursued postconviction relief, clemency, and habeas petitions; previous federal and state proceedings denied relief.
- In 2008 Beach filed a state postconviction petition alleging newly discovered evidence establishing actual innocence, invoking a statutory gateway or miscarriage-of-justice exception.
- The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and found Beach’s new evidence capable of establishing actual innocence to warrant a new trial.
- This Court reversed, holding Beach failed to present reliable new evidence that displaced the trial record, and denied the petition.
- The concurrence and dissents discuss distinctions between Herrera freestanding innocence and Schlup gateway innocence, and critique the standard used in Beach I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beach showed actual innocence under Herrera | Beach demonstrates ‘actual innocence’ by clear and convincing evidence. | No Herrera-style freestanding innocence; Beach’s new evidence is unreliable. | Beach did not establish Herrera freestanding innocence |
| Whether Beach showed gateway innocence under Schlup | New evidence creates reasonable doubt and passes through the Schlup gateway. | New evidence is unreliable or insufficient to show gateway innocence when weighed with trial evidence. | Beach failed to show gateway innocence; no remand for merits review |
| What standard applies to assessing actual innocence in postconviction relief | Beach I’s Clark-based framework should apply as the governing standard. | Clark framework is inappropriate for Schlup gateway claims and should be replaced by Schlup/Herrera standards. | Court adopts Schlup/Herrera framework; Clark-based test rejected for gateway review |
| Whether the district court erred by weighing new evidence against the old record | New evidence, when weighed with the trial record, shows likelihood of acquittal. | New testimony is not reliable; cannot displace strong trial evidence. | District Court erred in its evidentiary weighing; Beach still failed on reliability |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court 1995) (establishes gateway innocence standard for miscarriages of justice)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (Supreme Court 1993) (freestanding actual innocence standard; extraordinarily high threshold)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court 2006) (gateway analysis requires holistic review of all evidence)
- Redcrow, 1999 MT 95, 294 Mont. 252, 980 P.2d 622 (Mont. Supreme Court 1999) (discusses miscarriage of justice and gateway standards)
- Pope, 2003 MT 330, 318 Mont. 383, 80 P.3d 1232 (Mont. Supreme Court 2003) (gateway innocence framework and procedural posture)
- Clark, 2005 MT 330, 330 Mont. 8, 125 P.3d 1099 (Mont. Supreme Court 2005) (five-factor test for newly discovered-evidence motions within postconviction context)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court 1992) (prescribes framework for innocence claims involving death-penalty context)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court 1985) (assesses credibility and consistency of new testimony against record)
- Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997) (discusses gateway innocence standards and related relief)
- Herrera v. Collins (concurring discussion), 506 U.S. 390 (Supreme Court 1993) (contextual discussion of substantive innocence and threshold)