State v. Mosley, 895 N.W.2d 585

Background

On April 9, 2012, three people (DeLois Brown and her parents) were found shot to death in Brooklyn Park; Eddie Mosley was indicted and convicted at a bench trial of three counts of first‑degree premeditated murder and given consecutive life without release.
State evidence included motive (a contemporaneous CSC charge involving family), eyewitness and surveillance identification placing a man described as Mosley at the victim’s house on a bicycle, and M.T.’s testimony that he traveled with Mosley from St. Louis to Brooklyn Park, saw Mosley return with blood and dispose of clothing, ammunition, a gun, and a bicycle; physical evidence corroborated some of this testimony.
Mosley appealed and this court affirmed his convictions; the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
In 2015 Mosley filed a postconviction petition alleging newly discovered alibi affidavits from five witnesses and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (failure to investigate alibi witnesses; failure to object to in‑court ID and to admission of the CSC charge; appellate counsel’s failure to raise trial‑counsel ineffectiveness on direct appeal).
Two of the new affiants said defense counsel had contacted them before trial; other affiants said they saw Mosley in St. Louis or had him do work there during the relevant time.
The postconviction court summarily denied relief: it found the affidavits were known to or cumulative of trial testimony (procedural bar under Knaffla for some claims) and the ineffective‑assistance claims lacked merit; Mosley appealed and the court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Mosley’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether five affidavits are newly discovered evidence entitling Mosley to a new trial	Affidavits place Mosley in St. Louis during murders; therefore new evidence warrants a new trial	Two affiants had been contacted by defense before trial; remaining testimony would be cumulative to trial alibi testimony	Denied — affidavits known to or cumulative of trial evidence; Rainer factors not satisfied
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for inadequate investigation (failing to locate/call alibi witnesses)	More alibi witnesses would have created reasonable probability of different outcome	The alleged witnesses would be cumulative to J.P.’s trial testimony; overall guilt evidence was overwhelming	Denied — defendant fails Strickland prejudice prong; no reasonable probability of changed outcome
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to in‑court identification and admission of CSC charge	Counsel should have objected under Minn. R. Evid. 403, 608, 609	Objection decisions are trial strategy; record does not show unreasonable performance or prejudice	Denied — strategic choices entitled to deference and no Strickland showing
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising trial‑counsel ineffectiveness on direct appeal	Appellate counsel should have raised ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Appellate counsel may decline issues unlikely to prevail; underlying trial‑counsel claims lack merit	Denied — no basis to fault appellate counsel because trial‑counsel claims fail under Strickland

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mosley, 853 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2014) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1997) (standard for newly discovered evidence entitlement to new trial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (procedural bar on raising issues post‑appeal)
Fort v. State, 829 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. 2013) (no evidentiary hearing required when alleged facts, if true, are legally insufficient)