*1 and the interim ordinance was ORDER capricious, valid. files, upon Based all the records and herein, proceedings City’s that the in-
Because we conclude validly terim moratorium ordinance was IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that enacted, thereby placing a moratorium on decision of the Compensation Workers’ licenses, pawnbroker the issuance of and 12, 2010, be, Appeals April Court of filed the current under ordinance Pawn Amer- is, same opinion. affirmed without ica does not meet the conditions for Kempton, See v. Hoff pawnbroker requested license at the loca- (Minn.1982) (explaining “[s]ummary tion, we hold that the district court did not precedential affirmances have no value be- in concluding City err is not re- they cause do not commit the court to quired pawnbroker to issue a license to view,” particular point of doing no more Pawn America. case). than establishing the law of the Affirmed. $1,200 Employee attorney is awarded fees. STRAS, J., having been member argument
of this court at the time of the BY THE COURT: submission, took no part Page C. /s/Alan consideration decision of this case. Associate Justice WOLF, Respondent, Pamela A. GASSLER, Jr., Daniel Robert petitioner, Appellant,
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORA- TION, Liberty Mutual Insur- Companies, ance Relators. Minnesota, Respondent. STATE of
No. A10-809. No. A09-1534. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Aug. 2010. Sept. Manka, Katz, Manka, Gary L. Teplinsky, Sobol, Ltd., MN, Minneapolis, Graves &
for respondent. Kohl, Molde,
Mary Stacey E. A. Johnson Condon, P.A., MN, Minneapolis,
& for re-
lators. *3 entry Merchant, years two after the later of: Appellate Chief
David W. if no Cromett, judgment of conviction or sentence Defender, F. As- Michael Public filed; Defender, Paul, appellate an direct appeal St. sistant State Public petitioner’s ap- direct disposition court’s MN, appellant. 2, 2005, ch. art. peal.” Act of June General, Swanson, Attorney Wm. Lori 901,1097-98. Minn. Laws With Jr., Attorney Gener- Klumpp, F. Assistant of the amend- regard to the effective date Rasmussen, al, Paul, MN; and Charles St. ment, provided, “Any per- legislature MN, Prairie, Long County Attorney, Todd final before son whose conviction became respondent. *4 2005, 1, years after August shall have two Paul, MN, Jonas, Ann for ami- Julie St. 1, [August of act the effective date Project of Innocence cus curiae The postconviction a petition 2005] to file for Minnesota. legislature created relief.” Id. The also of two-year five to the statute exceptions OPINION filing petition postcon- a for limitations for PAGE, exception ap- The viction relief. second Justice. plies allegations newly of to 1992, appellant, In Robert Daniel Gas not ascer- that could have been evidence Jr., sier, guilty first-degree of was found diligence, tained exercise by the of due for County in District Court murder Todd cumulative, im- that is that is not for not shooting of involvement in the death his clear peachment, and establishes life Yungk prison. to Dale and sentenced petitioner convincing and evidence that evidence, the pre State Along with other § Minn.Stat. innocent. testimony of Federal Bureau sented 4(b)(2) (2008). fifth exception applies The (FBI) who, agent relying Investigation to the sat- petitioner when “the establishes Analysis Lead Composite Bullet on petition the court that the isfaction of (CBLA),1 pellet that a testified recovered and is the interests frivolous Yungk’s body came from a from box 4(b)(5) justice.” Minn.Stat. Gassler’s con ammunition tied to Gassier. (2008). 1993, 3, September was on viction affirmed final consequently and on Decem became 2007, In a news November Gassier saw Gassler, 2, ber 1993.2 State 505 See report that indicated that CBLA (Minn.1993). In post- N.W.2d origin cannot On establish bullets. denied, conviction court without an eviden- 31, 2008, Gassier a second March filed hearing, pro petition se for tiary Gassler’s petition arguing relief postconviction for relief, in 1999 we af postconviction and that he had been convicted on the basis court. postconviction firmed the Gassler false evidence. Gassier invoked (Minn.1999). State, jus- and discovered evidence interests two-year tice statute of legislature exceptions In amended the statute, filing petition postcon- for Minn. Stat 590.01 limitations for postconviction (2004), viction Gassier filed a discov- provide, petition post- to “No relief. also motion, ery seeking compel than the State conviction relief be filed more appeal Analysis and will be re- Composite Lead is also conviction on direct 1. Bullet Analysis. Comparative necessary as Bullet Lead peated opinion only known in this appeal. resolve the issues raised in this underlying The evidence Gassler’s convic- opinion affirming tion can be in our his found Laboratory prin- “FBI ultimately obtain and disclose neither he nor Yungk were charged burglary. auxiliary examiner with cipal and benchnotes” during testing. the CBLA created incident, At the time of this Yungk living Dale Lessard were at the residence postconviction Gas- The court denied Beckman, of Gordon and Gassier lived motion, discovery explaining sler’s sporadically. there late January duty had no to disclose records State Yungk admitted to Lessard that he and not possess. postconviction it did burglarized Gassier had business summarily also sec- court denied Gassler’s January 1990, Roseville. Also late Gas- postconviction relief. The ond sier was garage sawing seen Beckman’s postconviction explained court Gas- off a shotgun applying surgical tape two-year sler’s was barred According Lessard, the stock. statute limitations and no kill Yungk shotgun intended to with the Specifically, applicable. Yungk because he believed was a “snitch” held that discovered evi- Yungk had given because him his *5 apply dence did not because money share of the from the burglary. prove by failed to his innocence Gassier April 13, 1990, the of night On a friend convincing Concluding and clear evidence. of Yungk’s attempted to contact him at within “squarely that Gassler’s fell Beckman’s residence. tele- The friend of purview ‘newly the discovered evi- phoned p.m., at around 9 Yungk and told exception,” dence’ him to call back. When the friend called reach did not the issue of whether Gassier back, Yungk he was told that had left requirements the interests satisfied Gassier residence with and James Scott.3 justice exception. appealed. Gassier morning, Yungk’s body The next dis- was trial, presented At the State County. covered in Todd That same establishing following facts. Dale morning, Yarbough, close Veronica a was Yungk early morning murdered on the Gassler’s, friend of went to her mother’s 1990. His found on April body was house and Gassier and saw Scott. Gassier roadway of a rural in Coun- side Todd told that he and Yarbough Scott had killed ty Yungk at around a.m. was shot three Yungk body and left his on the side shotgun times with a in the and back head point.” road a prove “to Gassier offered and died from loss of blood. spent Yarbough shotgun a shell as a “sou- venir,” changed but then his mind. leading The events death Yungk’s January began night 1990. On the Ricky Foster testified that Scott and 14,1990, January police investigat- officers at his April Gassier arrived home on suspicious ed a car outside a Roseville shotgun and that had a sawed off Gassier business, catering where it later de- wrapped tape that was white surgical burglary termined a had been committed. gunpowder. and smelled of said Foster tools, Burglary sledgehammer, large a a told him Gassier that he and Scott knife, and a pis- .25 caliber semi-automatic some burglaries had committed and car, someone, tol were found which was driven although he Gas- had shot later Yungk passen- days Gassier with as the he joking. sier claimed was Several time, later, ger. was arrested at the but Gassier Scott Gassier asked Foster’s Scott, first-degree Scott James was convicted of His conviction was affirmed in State v. Yungk's (Minn. 1992). murder for his involvement in mur separate a der in trial held before Gassler’s. Munoz, mother, likely a to have manu- Beverly keep pellets suitcase were been opened the suitcase and Cartridge for them. She factured Federal on or about ammunition, shotgun, a and other found likely the same date and came from the day said he want- items. The next Gassier same box of ammunition. back, then refused to shotgun ed the but Agent Riley’s testimony, To understand time, At gun away. take the must first Bullet one understand CBLA. something being about someone mentioned originates large “pot” lead molten trying murdered and someone was recycled refined from automotive lead bat- ultimately break into the house. Munoz Tobin,4 A. Comparative teries. William turned the suitcase and its contents over Analysis: Study Bullet Lead A Case Paul to the St. Police. Forensics, July Flawed The Champion, obtaining After suitcase from the St. 2004, at 13. The lead is then sent to Police, Paul Appre- the Bureau of Criminal secondary majority refiner that uses (BCA), investigating hension which was batteries, the lead to make new but sends murder, that, Yungk’s determined in addi- (approximately per- small fraction five ammunition, shotgun tion to the cent) of the recovered and refined lead to proceeds burgla- contents included from bullet manufacturers. Id. The lead is tape ries. The BCA then asked Munoz to packaged then cast into bullets and phone several record conversations with (some- stamped boxes packing with codes returning Gassier in connection with codes”) times called “lot shipped shotgun to him. con- As result these wholesalers. Id.
versations, by Gassier was arrested the St. 1960s, In began the the FBI to offer Paul interroga- Police. When Gassier was a CBLA as forensic service. Id. at 14. BCA, by ted the he denied involve- assumptions: CBLA is based on three the However, in Yungk’s ment murder. he tiny fragment analyzed repre- of lead is a also indicated that he Yungk believed sample origins; and that he sentative of the lead’s police “snitch” would tell the nothing Yungk’s about if source fragment sample murder even he from which the uniform; knew who had done it. originated compositionally produced no two molten sources are ever presenting In addition to all evi- composition. with the same at Id. 16. above, dence described the State also Peer assumptions review these was un- expert called two first witnesses. The ex- available until the because ac- mid-1980s pert that shotgun testified scratches on the cess to a nuclear required reactor was they may shells indicated that have been analysis. However, Id. because of ad- shotgun fired from the recovered from in technology, accuracy pre- vances Munoz, expert say but the could so as testimony dictions based on CBLA can certainty. to a scientific The second ex- now be tested without a nuclear reactor. pert, Special Agent FBI Riley, John P. expert Id. CBLA witnesses have histori- that pellets testified he examined 10 cally spe- testified that when six or seven Yungk’s body were removed from cific elements the lead matrix match the compared against them ammunition found by police, the suitcase recovered from Af- bullet recovered the bullets Munoz. noting ter original the same six elements were must have common source as to and, therefore, present pellets pot and the ammunition of molten lead must suitcase, Agent Riley by produced testified have been the same manufac- support compel discovery. 4. William Tobin filed an affidavit in of Gassler’s motion to day. Many turer on the same Id. at Council, Nat’l Research Forensic Analysis times, case, in this (2004). as witnesses have Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence 112 even concluded that the bullets came from In the FBI stated that it “still the same box of bullets. Id. firmly supported] the scientific foundation analysis,” of bullet lead following request
In but from the would cease practice using FBI to investigate testing, type CBLA the Na- of evidence (NRC) tional because of reported probative Research Council its relative value permit compared Release, CBLA data does not to its definitive cost. Press Fed. concerning origins statements Bureau of Investigation, FBI Laboratory originating bullets and that bullets from Announces Discontinuation of Bullet Lead different indistinguishable. sources can be 1, 2005), (Sept. Examinations available at Id. at 12-13. an effort to avoid the http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/ vague and ambiguous word “source” used bullet_leacLanalysis.htm. Following a re- witnesses, Laboratory FBI the term port by CBS News and The Washington “compositionally indistinguishable Post, volume the FBI issued 2007 statement (CIVL) of lead” was defined the NRC acknowledging that “message[ on] as the volume of lead that “produced discontinuation of lead analysis bullet during production one run at point one enough [was] clear getting time.” at report Id. 20. The NRC recom- right people.” Release, Press Bu- Fed. mends that expert testimony strictly reau Investigation, FBI Laboratory to possible limited to two conclusions: that Increase Outreach in Bullet Lead Cases bullets from the same CIVL are more (Nov. 17, 2007), http://www.fbi. available at likely to be analytically indistinguishable gov/pressrel/pressrel07/bulletleadlll707. than bullets from different CIVLs and/or statement, htm. In the 2007 the FBI indi- that having analytical- two bullets that are cated that primary reason that CBLA ly indistinguishable probabil- increases the was discontinued inability was “the of sci- *7 ity that two bullets came from the same entists and manufacturers to definitively CIVL versus no evidence of match status. significance evaluate the of an association However, Id. it is unknown how often between in bullets made the course of a analytically unrelated CIVLs that are in- bullet lead January examination.” Id. In distinguishable produced; therefore, are it 2009, FBI responded the to a letter from impossible say likely how matched Attorney the Minnesota General’s office bullets are to have a origin. common Id. Agent and stated that Riley’s testimony Specifically, report, in its the made a NRC that pellets the Yungk removed from and finding that, and recommendation pellets the tied to Gassier came from the same box was inappropriate sup- and not
[although it has been demonstrated that ported by the January science. The there are a large number of different letter also [CIVLs], May retracted an earlier there is evidence that bullets letter which the FBI had that from indicated different CIVLs can sometimes Agent Riley’s testimony proper. The coincidently analytically be indistin- guishable. January 2009 possible explicitly The existence of letter stated that coincidentally indistinguishable agent opine the could not that pellet CIVLs the acknowledged should be autopsy the laborato- retrieved from the came from a ry report by expert the particular witness on box of ammunition or came from direct examination. particular of source lead. in the district court with the not conceded concerned former and
Gassier July 31, was filed after the latter. petition that his the deadline, argued but that stat- the first claim We address Gassler’s inter- newly discovered evidence and ute’s petition postconviction that his for relief is exceptions to the justice of time bar ests not time barred because the new statute’s applicable.5 postconviction The court were ly exception discovered permits evidence newly that discovered ruled the evidence be his heard. order the apply not because exception did newly exception ap discovered evidence by prove convincing clear and failed (1) ply: petitioner allege must the exis Further, he is innocent. (includ newly tence discovered evidence concluding that Gassler’s fell (2) evidence); ing scientific the evidence purview ‘newly the “squarely within not have been could ascertained post- exception,” evidence’ discovered diligence by exercise of due petitioner did court not reach the conviction issue petitioner’s attorney within the two- requirements Gassier satisfied the whether year period filing postconviction time exception. The of the interests (3) petition; the evidence is not cumulative explained that postconviction having trial; to evidence presented at the evi satisfy evi- failed for impeachment purposes; dence is not requirements, exception application dence the evidence must establish of the interests would convincing pe clear and standard purpose spirit” of the “undermine titioner is innocent the offense for which discovered evidence petitioner was convicted. Minn.Stat. court further stated 4(b)(2). The postconviction does believe circum- “the Court court held that Gassier satisfied the first exist which would warrant a stances satis- test, prongs four of this but failed to estab requirement time in- faction brief, lish the final In its prong. the State justice.” terests of challenge finding does the court’s first prongs three of this test were I. met, so these issues will not be addressed.6 outset, it kept must At mind Chaplin, Melina v. only question us before is whether (Minn.1982) (concluding that not ar issues newly discovered evidence or interests gued in briefs must be deemed waived on justice exceptions found MinmStat. State, appeal); Scruggs 4(b) (2008), permit Gas- *8 (Minn.1992) 24 n. 1 (“Appellant’s brief does untimely postconviction petition sler’s claims, the first address three so these heard. That is a separate- question waived.”). claims are deemed whether from the substantive claims made in the itself test, entitle Gassier re- prong The fifth which those lief on claims. At this are stage, dispositive,7 requires we case is this dispute assertion, 5. There is no challenge that Gassler's second this it is waived deemed postconviction petition filed two was within purposes analyzing newly the discover- years learning of his of the statements made ed evidence . n press FBI's November 2007 release. prong 7.Because our resolution of this is dis- 6. We do not believe that the CBLA evidence arguments positive, we need not reach made evidence, rather, constitutes respect by prong. the State with fourth more properly it is evi- characterized as false However, since dlnce. State has failed by Yungk must establish a “clear and was killed and told her that “Dale convincing petitioner dead,” standard is was and that he and Scott had ... innocent of the offense for which the Yungk killed and left his body on the side petitioner was convicted.” Minn.Stat. prove the road “to a point.” Gassier 4(b)(2). 590.01, “Clear and con was seen with a sawed off shotgun that vincing” exactly suggested means what is smelled gun powder the day after by ordinary meaning of the terms killed, Yungk was and a firearms examiner making up phrase. Weber v. concluded that similarities exist between (Minn. Anderson, 269 N.W.2d test wads8 linked to Gassier and wads 1978). The burden of clear convincing and taken from the crime scene Yungk’s and required by evidence is less than that autopsy. “beyond reasonable doubt” standard argues that without the criminal matters and is met when the truth CBLA evidence the State’s case is com proven “highly of the fact to be proba posed of with questionable witnesses credi Id.; Moore, Rogers ble.” bility physical and no evidence. argu This (Minn.1999). prove In order to ment is unconvincing. credibility Witness evidence, claim by convincing clear and decide, is for the trier of fact to not this party’s evidence in unequivocal, should be court. Under Minn.Stat. trinsically credible, probable and and free 4(b)(2), the burden of proving innocence is Kavanagh from frailties. v. The Golden defendant, on merely showing that Rule, 510, 516-17, 226 Minn. improperly admitted evidence (1948). have Here, the evidence at jury influenced the does not prove itself issue does not establish Gassler’s inno innocence. Because Gassier has failed to cence under the clear convincing stan Yungk’s establish his innocence of dard. murder standard, convincing clear and we report While the NRC and letter hold that the district court did not err from the FBI establish that a portion of when it concluded that Gassier is not enti Agent Riley’s testimony regarding CBLA tled to have his considered under evidence lacked scientific support and discovered evidence admitted, should not have been on the statutory time bar. here, record the elimination of that evi clearly dence does not and convincingly II. establish Gassier is innocent. When Keeping in mind that at stage alive, Yungk last seen inwas Gassler’s we are concerned with whether sec company. sawing Gassier was seen off the 4(b), permits tion subdivision con shotgun barrel of a night Yungk before petition, sideration of the and not with was murdered. Several witnesses testified merits, petition’s we turn to repeatedly that Gassier Gassler’s Yungk referred to as a claims that he is entitled to relief under Yungk “snitch” before killed *9 590.01, 4(b)(5), § that Minn.Stat. in Yungk’s after murder the Gassier stated justice of person postcon- to at least one terests Yungk he killed Yungk because a viction court to “snitch” and had not declined consider the given money Gassier his share of taken statute’s interests of exception, during burglaries. Yarbough concluding testified that that because Gassler’s claim is Gassier looked tired the morning precluded by after discovered evi- part shotgun provides gas A "wad” is a of a shell a seal.
584 exception meaning
dence contained in section or their definition.” Minn.Stat. 4(b)(2), 645.08(1) (2008). of subdivision interests § goal Our apply. sup- cannot tois ascertain and effectuate the inten- port affirming postconviction tion legislature. Every of the law shall justice determination, court’s interests of construed, if possible, give be to effect to the concurrence State and provisions. all its When the words of a argue case court’s law in their application existing to an reasoning disagree. is correct. We situation are clear and free all from statute, construing When ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not phrases “words and are construed accord disregarded pretext pur- under the ing grammar according to rules of to suing spirit. approved their common usage; but (2008). Here, § MinmStat. 645.16 technical Minn. phrases words and and such oth 4, acquired special ers as have ... Stat. meaning is clear and free according special are construed to such ambiguity.9 from all engage plain 9. The concurrence judgment "any claims in a from a final other reason 590.01; language interpretation justifies of section relief.” The United States Su however, proceeds the concurrence preme interpreted then "any Court has the words rely 60(b) on other rules "as illustrations.” Based impose other” of Federal Rule "illustrations,” on these the concurrence con- exclusivity requirement. mutual Klapprott v. petition alleges States, 601, 613, cludes that "when that it 384, United 335 U.S. 69 S.Ct. specific exceptions falls within one the four (1949). 93 L.Ed. Specifically, 266 the Su 4(b), set forth in subdivision the residual in- preme party may Court held that a "not avail justice exception apply.” terests of cannot ‘any himself of the broad other reason’ clause However, statutory text is the 60(b)” authorita- grounds if his motion is based on intent, legislative any tive statement of Id; specified in Lilje other clauses. see also other extrinsic material. Goodman v. Best berg Acquisition v. Health Corp., Services 486 Inc., 755, (Minn.2010). Buy, 777 N.W.2d 758 847, 11, 2194, U.S. 864 n. 108 S.Ct. 100 language plain "When the a statute (1988). L.Ed.2d 855 Minnesota Rule of Civil unambiguous, legis- it is assumed to manifest 60.02(f) nearly Procedure identical given lative intent and must be effect.” 60(b) clause of Federal Rule and we have Burkstrand, 206, Burkstrand v. adopted Supreme analysis. Chap Court’s (Minn.2001). language When the of a Special man v. Sch. Dist. No. is clear ambiguity, section and free from all (Minn.1990) (holding that relief is disregard we cannot the letter of the law 60.02(f) available under Minn. R. Civ. P. pretext pursuing under spirit. See if the basis for the motion is other than that 645.16; Garcia, Beardsley Minn.Stat. (a) (e)). specified through under clauses (Minn.2008). The concur- legislature If our had intended a mutual approach utilizing rence’s civil rules to exclusivity requirement, express it could have explain what it admits is a clear and unam- ly stated such an intent or included the words biguous misguided. criminal statute is Either However, Therefore, "any other.” it did not. the words of the statute are clear and the plain meaning we cannot abandon the meaning interpreted by statute's can be reli- words in the statute in order to facilitate what text, ance on the statute's words create legislature’s concurrence views as the in ambiguity explained by and must be reference Finally, tent. the rule the concurrence relies Here, to extrinsic material. the concurrence on as "illustration” is a civil rule. This is a point has not and cannot words in the criminal case with different considerations. statute interpretation that lend credence to its ignore Even if we were to the clear and of section 590.01. unambiguous language of the statute and con Moreover, 60(b) Fed.R.Civ.P. and Minn. procedure R. sider the concurrence's for inter statute, Civ. support P. 60.02 do not preting the concur we would still be com *10 position. (6) rence’s pelled Clause of Federal justice Rule to conclude that the interests of 60(b) may party exception may states that the court relieve a ambiguity, be considered as
585 (1950) 813, 353, 360, 41 N.W.2d 817 post- for Minn. untimely petition otherwise An (“The disjunctive if word ‘or’ is a and ordi- by a court may be heard relief conviction 590.01, things alter- narily refers to different sub- set out section exception an 4(b) natives.”); see also Merriam-Webster’s 4(b), Subdivision applies. division (11th ed.2004) Dictionary 872 Collegiate provides: (defining “or” as “a function word to indi- (a), (b) Notwithstanding paragraph alternative”). Here, legisla- an cate postconvic- petition hear a may court disjunctive word “or” to ture used the if: tion relief postcon- to the exceptions connect the five the pro- viction time bar. When statute’s the existence petitioner alleges 590.01, of section subdivision are visions evidence, including newly discovered context, conclude that there is read we evidence, not have that could scientific suggest the use of the nothing to of due by the exercise been ascertained anything to be word “or” was intended petitioner petitioner’s or diligence by the above, disjunctive. other than As noted two-year period time attorney within the clear, the words of a statute are we when petition, and filing postconviction may disregard the letter of the law cumulative to evi- is not the evidence pursuing the law’s pretext under the trial, im- not for at presented dence 645.16; see also spirit. Minn.Stat. purposes, and establishes peachment Borchardt, 648 N.W.2d Jones that the convincing standard a clear and (Minn.2009) (noting that this- innocent of the offense petitioner is disregard plain language stat- petitioner offenses for which legislative ute to search for an alternative convicted; intent). Therefore, we section read ...; or 4(b), provide that if subdivision petitioner establishes satisfy any of the five ex- petitioner can court that the satisfaction of the bar, ceptions to the time the time bar frivolous and is in the interests is not apply. does not justice. court deter- postconviction Because the Generally, the context of unless required to consider mined that it was not otherwise, requires statutory provision 4(b)’s ex- subdivision interests use of the legislature’s we have read the postconvic- ception, we conclude connecting a series of “or” when word erred.10 tion court disjunctive. in a statute to be clauses See, Hosp., Amaral v. St. Cloud e.g., III. (Minn.1999) (“Absent 379, 385 whether section next consider ‘or’ should We revealing that the word context 4(b)(5), Gas- permits subdivision conjunctive, general we have read as a be In order to be to be heard. Aberle v. sler’s disjunctive.”); ly read ‘or’ heard, peti- that his Ass’n, must establish Dep’t Fire Faribault Relief apply in its should concerning statutes ests of the ambit of criminal ex- analysis evidence discovered lenity. See State in favor of must be resolved below, in more detail ception. As discussed Niska, (Minn. 1994). requires justice exception con- the interests part of the re- are not a responding to motion for of factors that Gassler's sideration consideration, analysis of the postconviction court's court stated the inter- implicitly it considered whether *11 586 First,
tion not and is in the frivolous interests we note that only applied we have justice. justice in exceptional interests situa S.M.E., tions. See In re 725 Welfare of A if petition is frivolous it is (Minn.2007) 740, 744 (discussing N.W.2d perfectly apparent, argument, without that application justice of the interests of in merit. petition is without See Johnson exceptional cases to allow ap out-of-time Co., 408, 409, City Ry. v. St Paul 68 Minn. peals proceed); to see also Powell 619, (1897); 71 Holding N.W. 619 Bronzin Anderson, (Minn. 107, 660 N.W.2d 121 McGee, 129, 130, Co. v. 166 Minn. 2003) (“We continuously must bear mind 199, 200 (holding N.W. that an an perform its high function in the insufficiency swer is frivolous when ap justice way best must satisfy appear pears on mere inspection); Black’s Law justice.”) (quoting ance of Liljeberg, 486 (8th ed.1999) Dictionary 692 (defining 864, 2194); U.S. at 108 S.Ct. In re Welfare “[Backing “frivolous” as a legal basis or J.R., Jr., (Minn.2003) 1, 655 N.W.2d 6-7 merit; serious; legal reasonably not (Anderson, H., J., Paul concurring part, Here, purposeful”). (“We dissenting in part) wary must be of a held that Gassler’s is not sweeps broadly broom that too and rules frivolous, challenge and the State does not strictly that are so justice enforced that Having that conclusion. established that has very potential real of being denied. Agent Riley’s testimony CBLA lacked sci This court flexibility grant must retain the support, entific petition challeng Gassler’s ed to it under our constitution to do what ing his part conCdctionbased in on that right despite statutory proscriptions or testimony on its face has substantive mer presumptions.... A interpretation strict Therefore, it. we conclude that Gassier requires dismissal, of the rules but has established that his is not justice interests of require that we reach frivolous. case.”); the merits of this Valencia v. not, in past, analyzed We have Ass’n, Coop. 221, 226, Markham 210 Minn. what must be shown to obtain relief 736, 297 N.W. (noting 738-39 justice interests of under section granted new trials are in the interests of 4(b)(5); subdivision nor does subdivision 4 cases). justice only in exceptional provide any only direction. The time that Beyond 4(b)(5) establishing that we will justice the subdivision interests of apply justice interests of us, exception in exception has been before we declined situations, exceptional we apply have identified a exception without discus sion of non-exclusive list of factors to what must be shown to be consid obtain relief State, State, Deegan ered. justice. the interests of we Moua v. discussed (Minn.2010) (“But interests of Moua explain, see, does and we fail rule. 93-94 Knaffla (Minn.2006). how the interests of explained favor the hear We satisfy ing However, petition.”). exception, his other a claim must have substan contexts, we have identified what tive must be merit and the defendant must not shown to obtain deliberately relief in the have inexcusably interests of failed to justice.11 raise appeal. the issue on direct Deegan, previously 11. We explained have phrase that when ture according intended to use the legislature phrase commonly uses we assume the meaning. its understood See In re legislature D.D.S., is aware of the law common un- Welfare of derstanding (Minn.1986). phrase legisla- and that the *12 Green, murder, which was later determined to at 93-94. State 711 N.W.2d Further, (Minn.2008), we noted have no scientific value. there 747 N.W.2d is in grant relief that deciding dispute that in whether no Gassier has not had an justice, should interests of courts to have the effect of im- opportunity party alleg- to which the weigh degree properly admitted evidence on his convic- error, is at fault for that ing Additionally, error tion evaluated. we conclude assigned party fault de- degree of delay filing in postcon- Gassler’s error, and whether fending alleged only viction can be attributed to fundamental unfairness to the defen- some the FBI’s failure to make clear before needs to be addressed. We have also dant January Agent Riley’s 2009 that CBLA justice in of when nec- acted the interests testimony supported was not science.12 judicial protect integrity essary notwithstanding, These facts we conclude Kaiser, proceedings. State require that the interests of do not (Minn.1992) in (holding that 385-86 spite that Gassler’s be heard in over supervisory powers exercise of our statutory time bar. While admission justice, in trial courts and the interests Riley’s Agent testimony pro- CBLA may, protect evidentiary we order blematic, as discussed above and our erosion, from award a new trial for rules opinions affirming his conviction on direct discovery prosecution’s breach of rules appeal affirming the denial of his first though required showing prejudice even relief, petition for there was made). recognized, We have has been substantial admissible evidence of Gas- however, that under certain circumstances trial, guilt including sler’s admitted at evi- seriously the reversal of a conviction dence that Gassier admitted to others that fairness, rep- integrity, public affect the Yungk. he That had killed evidence linked judicial State v. proceedings. utation of Yungk’s murder circumstantial- (Minn.1998) Griller, 736, 742 ly his through admissions others con- (declining to reverse the defendant’s evidence, directly. Given this we cannot despite undisputed plain error viction Riley’s say Agent the admission of instructions). jury in the testimony resulted a trial so fundamen- tally require unfair to Gassier as to us to these factors to Gas- Applying judicial protect integrity act to claims, conclude that this case sler’s we Indeed, as was the case Gril- process. category excep does not fall into the ler, conclude that it would be a miscar- “we that we aside requiring tional cases set justice” peti- to consider Gassler’s riage of 590.01, 4(a)’s, § time bar Minn.Stat. subd. under Minn. tion the interests justice. no in the interests of There is 4(b)(5).13 See 583 Stat. dispute that at trial the State offered and at 742. the district court admitted scientific evi Affirmed. directly linking Yungk’s Gassier to dence [indistin- between argues that the FBI’s 2005 re- canee of an association 12. The State wholly stated, a claim guishable Such bullets].” Laboratory port, which "the FBI still suggesting that without merit as the State is firmly supports the scientific foundation of CBLA have determined that Gassier should analysis” be the date on bullet lead should testing years before the was flawed two arose, appellant's which claim not the 2007 testing laboratory performed CBLA press FBI release in which the stated willing there was a flaw. to concede primary stop factor that lead the FBI to CBLA testing "inability is the of scientists and man- claims are 13. Because we hold that Gassler's definitively signifi- evaluate the ufacturers to 4(a), we by Minn.Stat. barred STRAS, J., having peachment purposes, been a member and establishes *13 argument convincing at the time of the a clear and of this court standard that the submission, part no in the petitioner took is the innocent of offense or of this case. consideration or decision petitioner offenses for which the convicted; GILDEA, (concurring). Justice Chief ...; or majority I that agree with the Gassler’s (5) petitioner establishes to the petition postconviction for relief is time satisfaction of petition the court that the 590.01, § subd. 4 barred under Minn.Stat. is not frivolous and is in the interests (2008). join majority I Part I of the And justice. majority opinion, in which the concludes 4(b). 590.01, Minn.Stat. The stat- that is not entitled to have his Gassier 4(c) goes provide ute on to in subdivision petition postconviction for relief considered “[a]ny petition that invoking an newly under the discovered evidence ex- (b) provided paragraph must be filed ception statutory time bar. But I years within two of the date the claim disagree majority with the insofar as it Id., 4(c). arises.” that concludes should have also considered whether Gas- dispute There is no that peti- Gassler’s petition sler’s met the interests of untimely tion was unless he satisfies one of exception in section 4(b) subdivision exceptions. subdivision my view, petition alleges when a that it argues that his satisfies two of the falls within specific excep- one the four exceptions newly discovered evidence —the 4(b), tions forth in set subdivision re- exception and the interests of ex- justice exception sidual interests of cannot ception. agree I majority with the apply. satisfy newly Gassier does not discov- But, ered evidence because the
Minnesota Statutes subdivision squarely basis for Gassler’s falls 4(a), requires any petition posteon- parameters newly within the discov- 2 years viction relief be filed no more than exception, ered evidence he cannot avoid entry judgment after the date of “the requirements the strict of that exception appeal conviction or sentence if no direct by merely arguing that his is an interests appellate filed” or “an disposition court’s justice petition. petitioner’s appeal.” direct Subdivision 4(b) of that section exceptions creates five legislature The carefully has detailed 2-year to this statute of limitations. The requirements petitioner must meet 4(b) provisions two of subdivision that are newly to receive a new trial based on dis- relevant to this case are as follows: 4(b)(2). covered evidence in subdivision
(2) petitioner alleges majority acknowledges, satisfy existence As the evidence, (1) including this exception petitioner must: al- evidence, scientific lege that could not have the existence of discovered evi- by dence, evidence; (2) been ascertained the exercise of due including scientific diligence by petitioner petitioner’s or show that the evidence could not have attorney two-year period within the time been ascertained the exercise of due filing a postconviction petition, and diligence by petitioner petitioner’s the evidence is not cumulative to evi- attorney 2-year within the time period for trial, (3) presented dence at is not for im- filing postconviction petition; show decline to consider the other claims raised Gassier. (whether (c) denom- Fraud heretofore to evi- is not cumulative the evidence extrinsic), trial; misrepre- show that the intrinsic or at inated presented
dence
purposes;
sentation,
impeachment
is not for
of an ad-
or other misconduct
the evidence establishes
show that
party;
verse
convincing standard
by a clear
(d)
void;
judgment
The
of the offense or
is innocent
petitioner
(e)
satisfied,
judgment
has been
was con-
petitioner
for which
offenses
*14
4(b)(2).
released,
judg-
a
discharged
prior
or
or
Minn.Stat.
victed.
concludes that Gas-
majority properly
it is based has been
upon
ment
which
by “clear and con-
vacated,
not established
sier has
or it is no
reversed or otherwise
innocent of
that he was
vincing evidence”
equitable
judgment
longer
he was convicted and
for which
the offense
application;
have
or
prospective
should
prong disposi-
his failure to meet
finds
(f)
justifying relief
Any other reason
tive.
judgment.
operation
from the
legis-
majority then thwarts
But the
rule
Minn. R.
P. 60.02. The
further
Civ.
instruc-
and detailed
very specific
lature’s
periods
two different limitations
provides
a
circumstances
which
about the
tions
statutory provision is
depending on which
when it allows
granted
trial should be
new
that such a motion
provides
invoked.
It
to
out his
a second chance make
time,
made within a reasonable
“shall be
gener-
the more
a new trial under
case for
(c)
(a), (b),
not more
and for reasons
I would
ic interests
order,
judgment,
1
or
year
than
after the
justice exception as a
interests of
treat the
entered or taken.”
Id.
proceeding was
situa-
exception, intended to cover
residual
excep-
four
by
covered
the other
tions not
60.02
interpreting
case law
Rule
Our
4(b),
by
means
not as a
tions of subdivision
moving
to set
party
makes clear that
may circumvent
petitioners
which
judgment
based on
discover-
aside a
of the other
specific requirements
more
may
1-year
avoid the
stat-
ed evidence
statutory exceptions.
the'newly
to
applies
limitations that
ute of
opportunity
(b)
we have not had
by
While
exception under
evidence
discovered
the interaction between
(f).
to construe
under
provision
the catch-all
invoking
4,
590.01, subdivision
in section
exceptions
Anderson,
514,
288 Minn.
v.
See Anderson
analogous
construing an
precedent
our
(“Rule
(1970)
718,
518,
722
P. 60.02—con-
R. Civ.
provision
60.02(6)
cover
—Minn.
clause to
residual
analysis.
provides
Rule 60.02
my
firms
and it is exclusive
contingency
unforeseen
“may
party
relieve a
or
that a court
(5).”).
(1)
Instead, we
through
of clauses
final
from a
party’s legal representatives
seeking relief must
party
that a
have held
(other
marriage dissolu-
than a
judgment
specific excep-
motion under
base their
order,
decree),
for the
proceeding”
tion
or
Special
Chapman
applies.
tion that
See
following reasons:
1,
921, 924
No.
Sch. Dist.
(a) Mistake, inadvertence,
or
surprise,
(“Clause (f)
(Minn.1990)
designat-
has been
neglect;
excusable
clause,
only designed
ed as a residual
exclu-
in those circumstances
afford relief
(b)
which
Newly
discovered
areas addressed
specific
sive of the
have been
diligence could not
by due
(a)
(e).”);
Sommers
through
clauses
move for a new
in time to
466-67,
Thomas,
88
59.03;
251 Minn.
trial
to Rule
pursuant
(“Clause
(1st Cir.1993)
(1958)
(6)1
(“[PJlaintiffs’
attempt
is couched in
very
It
gives
broad terms.
garb their
motion
the raiment of clause
power
relieve a
final
party
(6)
aground
runs
on the
principle
bedrock
judgment in
exercise of its sound dis-
(6) may
that clause
not be used as a vehi-
(1)
cretion, subject only to two limitations:
(1)
for circumventing
through
cle
clauses
be
the motion for relief must made within
(5).”);
Cheese,
Matter Dakota
923 F.2d
time and
relief
not be
reasonable
(8th
Cir.1991)
that,
(explaining
grounds
had under clause when the
because motion was
on
based
discov-
(1),
granting
properly
it
under
fall
clauses
evidence, it
governed by
ered
the 1-
(3),
(2),
one-year
to which the
limitation
60(b)(2)
year
period
limitation
of Rule
Only in
applies.”).
situations not covered
parties
concluding the
could
character-
exceptions
one of
other
five
do we
60(b)(6)
arising
it
ize
under Rule
might
justified
consider
whether relief
period).
avoid the limitation
explained
As
(f).
provision
under the catch-all
of clause
*15
Practice,
in Moore’s Federal
the rea-
“[i]f
454
at
Chapman,
See
N.W.2d
924.
judgment
sons offered for relief from
could
in
closely parallels
Our Rule 60.02
turn
spe-
be considered under
of the
one
more
60(b)
Rule
of the
Civil
Federal Rules of
60(b)(l)-(5),
cific clauses of Rule
rea-
those
60.02,
Procedure.2
Similar to our Rule
will
justify
sons
not
Rule
relief under
60(b)(6)
catch-all
in
exception found
Rule
60(b)(6).”
Moore,
12 James
Federal Prac-
provides
court may
party
that a
relieve a
(3d ed.2010).
§
tice
60.48[2]
judgment
“any
from a final
for
other rea
my view,
exceptions
the time
justifies
son that
relief.” The federal
statute,
bar
the postconviction
Minn.
interpret
provision
courts
this catch-all
as
4,
§
Stat.
operate in the same
applying only when the motion
not
“is
way
exceptions
as the
to the time
bar
premised on one of
grounds
for relief
60(b).
(b)(1)
our Rule 60.02 and to Fed.R.Civ.P.
through
enumerated in clauses
(b)(5).”
I would adhere to the
Liljeberg
Acqui
interpreting
v.
cases
Health Servs.
847,
11,
similar
Corp.,
excep-
sition
U.S.
863 & n.
these
rules and construe
486
108
2194,
(1988);
4,
§
S.Ct.
591 exceptions con four are each narrow- opposite The first majority reaches the legisla ly particular tailored to factual scenario. clusion, that because arguing statute, excep to cover designed in the The final “or” ture used disjunctively. might But factual come be read other situation that tions must its conclu majority cites to reach that would relief but is up cases the demand statutory provi involve similar four already sion do not covered one of the other Hosp., majority See Amaral St. Cloud As the acknowl- exceptions. sions. (Minn.1999) 379, (analyzing 385-88 relief will be under subdivi- edges, merited be read 4(b)(5) the word “or” should whether See exceptional cases. sion con conjunctively or in the disjunctively 585; at Valencia v. Markham supra cf. addressing “professionals a statute Ass’n, 221, 226, text of 297 N.W. Coop. Minn. seeking” privileged certain requesting that a new (explaining 738-39 it should concluding information granted trial will be in “the interests conjunctively in the context cases”). be read only in Peti- justice” “exceptional v. Faribault question); statute in Aberle should not be to circum- permitted tioners Minn. Dep’t Fire specific requirements of one Ass'n vent Relief (inter 359-60, making exceptions by the other four out disjunctively in a statute preting the “or” fifth, general case under the “un addressing pensions paid and benefits Co., Alloy Prods. Co. Auto. Wesco Cf. *16 act or any prior in accordance with der or (7th Cir.1989) (“Inherent F.2d omitted). (internal acts”) quotation marks 60(b) princi- in the structure of Rule is light on the cases therefore shed no These the first clauses and ple three question presented here. mutually clause are exclusive.... catchall is underlying principle rationale
Moreover, dispute wheth- is not over year applicable one time limit conjunc- disjunctive er is read “or” 60(b) would first three clauses of Rule § as the tive in Minn.Stat. Rather, if also available dispute meaningless relief was suggests. majority must provision.”). the strin- catchall We avoid under the over whether newly of all of gent requirements give provisions effect to 4(b)(2) 645.17(2) (2008) exception subdivision See Minn.Stat. statute. that his discovered evidence arguing intends the (noting legislature that “the a new gives right effective”). him the petition can to be We statute entire justice” under trial “in the interests of ex- if the only do this interests 4(b)(5). subdivision than something different ception means ex- already by the other covered what majority, the five ex- I read Unlike Because Gassler’s in the statute. ceptions limita- 2-year ceptions statute discov- sets forth claim factual a distinct to each address tions evidence, the in subdivision exception ered in which situation not enti- 4(b)(2), hold he was I would postcon- to hear is instructed review under the interests it was not tled to despite the fact viction relief 4(b)(5). in subdivision statutory time frame. within the brought five (ours and the first that clause ''establishfes] and the federal rules that courts similar courts) mutually and that relief interpreted manner are exclusive in a similar clauses have (6) if it would be had under clause plain meaning. 11 Charles cannot on their See based clauses” the earlier Mary Kay available under Wright, & have been Arthur R. Miller Alan concluding reading seems re- Kane, that “[t]his Practice Federal and Procedure rule.”). language (2d ed.1995) quired case law also (explaining that DIETZEN, (concurring). Justice join
I the concurrence Chief Justice
Gildea. Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE of Leigh LARSON, Appellant.
Jamie
No. A05-0031.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Sept.