Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560
2016 Minn. LEXIS 55
| Minn. | 2016Background
- Thomas Rhodes was convicted in 1998 of first-degree premeditated murder; his conviction and prior postconviction challenges were litigated in multiple appeals (Rhodes I–III).
- Trial evidence included medical testimony (Dr. McGee) that neck hemorrhages indicated external trauma and testimony about lake conditions suggesting the body could not have resurfaced 13 hours after drowning at the location Rhodes reported.
- Rhodes filed successive postconviction petitions; his third (filed 2012) relied on private-investigator reports dated 2009–2010; the fourth (filed 2014) relied on newer forensic literature (Pollanen 2009; Alexander & Jentzen 2011), expert affidavits, and a 2006 DNR lake-temperature report.
- Minnesota’s postconviction statute imposes a 2-year limitations period with five exceptions; the relevant exception here requires newly discovered evidence that (1) could not have been ascertained with due diligence within two years, (2) is noncumulative and not merely impeachment, and (3) establishes innocence by clear and convincing evidence, Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(2).
- The postconviction court summarily denied the third petition as untimely (claims arose before filing) and denied the fourth petition as failing the newly-discovered-evidence exception (insufficient to establish innocence and some evidence discoverable earlier).
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed: third petition untimely; fourth petition failed the clear-and-convincing innocence requirement and also could not overcome earlier nonmedical evidence supporting the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rhodes) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of third petition under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c) | Rhodes argued claims in 2012 petition arose from 2009–2010 reports and thus timely invoked exceptions | State argued Rhodes knew or should have known of those claims when he received the reports, so claims arose earlier | Court: Third petition untimely — claims arose when reports dated; summary denial affirmed |
| Applicability of newly-discovered-evidence exception for fourth petition (scientific literature) | Rhodes argued Pollanen and Alexander & Jentzen changed forensic science about neck hemorrhage and, with expert affidavits, could show actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence | State argued the literature/affidavits at best show possibility, are largely impeachment of Dr. McGee, and even if accepted, nonmedical evidence independently supports conviction | Court: Fourth petition fails § 590.01(b)(2) innocence prong — evidence equivocal and legally insufficient; summary denial affirmed |
| Materiality / need for evidentiary hearing on disputed forensic issues | Rhodes insisted factual disputes between Dr. McGee and multiple new experts are material in this wholly circumstantial case and require live testimony | State and majority: any dispute is not material because Rhodes II established conviction independent of medical testimony; no hearing required | Court: No abuse of discretion — no evidentiary hearing required because evidence would not meet clear-and-convincing innocence standard |
| DNR lake-temperature report and due diligence | Rhodes argued DNR data undermines Chandler’s trial testimony about temperature/resurfacing time and could not have been discovered earlier by diligence | State argued DNR data was publicly available earlier and, even with warmer temps, experts still say 13-hour resurfacing from 40 ft was impossible; claim is cumulative/untimely | Court: Did not decide diligence (alternative ground unnecessary) — DNR evidence legally insufficient to satisfy innocence prong; summary denial stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2012) (standard for granting postconviction evidentiary hearing)
- Brown v. State, 863 N.W.2d 781 (Minn. 2015) (actual innocence standard discussed in § 590.01(b)(2) context)
- Rhodes v. State (Rhodes II), 657 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 2003) (affirming conviction and holding nonmedical evidence independently sufficient)
- Rhodes v. State (Rhodes I), 627 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. 2001) (procedure remanding for evidentiary hearing on counsel effectiveness)
- Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2012) (when a claim "arises" for limitations purposes)
- Bobo v. State, 820 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 2012) (lower standard for postconviction evidentiary hearing than for new trial)
- Gassier v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (new scientific evidence insufficient where other evidence supports conviction)
- Colbert v. State, 870 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 2015) (summary denial of untimely postconviction petition affirmed)