Wacht v. State
2015 ND 154
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Daniel Wacht was convicted in 2012 of murdering Kurt Johnson and sentenced to life without parole; this Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal in State v. Wacht.
- Wacht filed a postconviction application alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence showing a State witness, Jason Bolstad, fabricated testimony.
- Ineffective-assistance claims: counsel allegedly failed to remove a juror related by marriage to the victim and failed to object to admission of latex gloves.
- Newly discovered evidence consisted of affidavits from two inmates who asserted Bolstad admitted fabricating testimony or using false testimony to obtain leniency.
- The State moved to dismiss; the district court summarily dismissed the application, finding the ineffective-assistance claims were precluded by direct appeal (res judicata) and the new affidavits would not likely produce an acquittal given corroborating physical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — juror related to victim | Wacht: counsel was ineffective for failing to remove a juror distantly related to victim | State: this claim was raised and rejected on direct appeal; cannot be relitigated | Court: Precluded by res judicata; claim dismissed |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to latex gloves | Wacht: counsel erred by not objecting to admission of gloves | State: claim was raised on direct appeal and rejected | Court: Precluded by res judicata; claim dismissed |
| Newly discovered evidence — affidavits alleging Bolstad fabricated testimony | Wacht: affidavits from two inmates show Bolstad admitted fabricating testimony and seeking leniency, warranting relief | State: Bolstad’s testimony was corroborated by physical evidence; affidavits are impeachment material unlikely to change verdict | Court: Affidavits do not meet required weight/quality to likely produce acquittal; summary dismissal affirmed |
| Procedural — summary dismissal standard | Wacht: factual disputes exist warranting an evidentiary hearing | State: no genuine issue of material fact; entitled to judgment as matter of law | Court: Applied summary-judgment standard; no genuine material factual issue presented; no hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wacht, 2013 ND 126, 833 N.W.2d 455 (affirming conviction; summarized "overwhelming" physical evidence supporting jury verdict)
- Haag v. State, 2012 ND 241, 823 N.W.2d 749 (postconviction proceedings are civil; summary-dismissal standard guidance)
- Syvertson v. State, 2005 ND 128, 699 N.W.2d 855 (standards for new trial / newly discovered evidence: discovery timing, diligence, materiality, and likelihood of acquittal)
- Clark v. State, 1999 ND 78, 593 N.W.2d 329 (claims raised on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in postconviction proceedings)
- Heyen v. State, 2001 ND 126, 630 N.W.2d 56 (applicant entitled to evidentiary hearing if reasonable inference raises genuine issue of material fact)