STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondent, vs. Stephen Carl Allwine, Appellant.
A18-0846 A20-1588
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT
August 18, 2021
McKeig, J.
Washington County Office of Appellate Courts
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Pete Orput, Washington County Attorney, Nicholas A. Hydukovich, Assistant County Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota, for respondent.
S Y L L A B U S
- Sufficient evidence supports the jury‘s verdict that appellant is guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant‘s claim of prosecutorial misconduct without an evidentiary hearing because, even if the alleged facts
were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, appellant is conclusively entitled to no relief on that claim. - Based on the information before the district court when it denied appellant‘s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel without an evidentiary hearing, the district court did not abuse its discretion because, even if the then-alleged facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, appellant is conclusively entitled to no relief on that claim.
- A motion for reconsideration of a postconviction order that denies relief cannot introduce new evidence.
Affirmed.
O P I N I O N
MCKEIG, Justice.
After being convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for killing his wife, appellant Stephen Allwine1 appeals from his conviction and from the district court‘s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Allwine presents four issues on appeal. First, he argues his conviction must be reversed because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury‘s verdict that he is guilty. Second, he claims his conviction must be reversed, or alternatively, a postconviction evidentiary hearing must be held, because the State committed prosecutorial misconduct. Third, he argues he is entitled to a new trial because his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Last, he contends an evidentiary hearing must be held to review the opinions of two experts to
FACTS
Stephen and Amy Allwine married in 1998. Stephen worked in information technology. Amy ran a dog training business from the Allwine family residence. Stephen and Amy had a son, J.A. Stephen and Amy were very involved in their church, which does not condone infidelity or divorce. Stephen was a church elder who gave sermons and counseled others in the congregation. If a church elder is found to have committed adultery, that person could no longer serve as an elder and may be asked to leave the congregation. Beginning in 2014, Stephen engaged in multiple extramarital affairs.
In February 2016, a person using the online screen name “dogdayGod” sent a message to Besa Mafia2 on the dark web,3 seeking to hire a person to kill Amy. Soon after, dogdayGod sent a second message to Besa Mafia requesting that Amy be killed while she was on a business trip in Moline, Illinois. DogdayGod provided Besa Mafia with the address of the hotel where Amy would be staying, a physical description of Amy, a
In May 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) learned through an anonymous source that dogdayGod was trying to hire a hitman to kill Amy. An FBI agent and a Cottage Grove police detective notified Amy of the threat against her life. Law enforcement advised Amy to take security precautions and to report any suspicious activity to police. The next month, Amy notified the FBI that she had received two anonymous emails threatening to harm her and her family unless she committed suicide. In response to the threats, the FBI began an investigation. Investigators interviewed Stephen and Amy‘s work colleagues, and searched Stephen and Amy‘s two HP Notebook laptop computers.5 The investigation did not result in any leads.
November 13, 2016: The Day Amy Allwine Was Killed
Stephen awoke shortly before 6:00 a.m. and went to his basement office to work. Around 12:00 p.m., Stephen went upstairs to have lunch with Amy and J.A. Soon after, Amy told Stephen that she was feeling dizzy, lightheaded, and that she was going to bed to rest. Around 1:00 p.m., C.Z., Amy‘s father, arrived at the Allwine residence to finish a home project that he had started a few days earlier. Stephen told C.Z. that Amy was in bed and not feeling well. C.Z. did not see his daughter while he was at the Allwine residence.
Around 5:30 p.m., Stephen arrived at C.Z.‘s residence to pick up J.A. C.Z. asked Stephen what he learned about Amy‘s illness at the clinic. Stephen told C.Z. that Amy decided not to go to the clinic. Following a brief conversation, Stephen and J.A. left. Stephen and J.A. returned to the Allwine residence at approximately 6:52 p.m. Upon entering their home, J.A. saw his mother lying on the floor with a pool of blood around her head. At approximately 7:00 p.m., Stephen called 911. On the 911 call, Stephen told the emergency dispatcher: “I think my wife shot herself. There‘s blood all over.” Minutes later, Cottage Grove police arrived at the Allwine residence. Officers went into the master bedroom and saw Amy lying face up on the floor with her pants unbuttoned and unzipped, her hands at her sides, blood on the floor, and a handgun laying on Amy‘s left forearm. Officers discovered Amy suffered a gunshot wound to the right side of her head.
Stephen Allwine‘s Trial
Following an investigation, a grand jury indicted Stephen Allwine on the charge of first-degree premeditated murder.
A retired officer testified that Allwine reported to police that he had been scammed out of $6,000 while trying to purchase Bitcoin in March 2016. Another officer testified that the crime scene was “strange” and not consistent with a suicide. The medical examiner testified that she discovered a nontherapeutic amount of scopolamine6 in Amy‘s system. Based on the level of scopolamine, the medical examiner agreed with law enforcement‘s assessment that Amy died at 3:15 p.m. or earlier on November 13, 2016. The medical examiner also agreed with law enforcement‘s assessment that the evidence was not consistent with a suicide.
The computer forensic expert testified that the user S Allwine downloaded TOR—a web browser needed to access the dark web—on the MacBook Pro laptop computer.7 The expert testified that he found a “note” on the MacBook Pro laptop computer with an email address “sharklasers.com,” which allows users to send anonymous emails. The expert testified that the user S Allwine composed an anonymous email on the MacBook Pro laptop computer. The expert testified that minutes before dogdayGod sent a message
The defense argued that Stephen could not have murdered Amy because he was not home at the time Amy was murdered. The defense presented several witnesses8 who all testified to either seeing Amy sometime in the afternoon in her driveway or to hearing an anonymous vehicle speed off quickly around the Allwine residence. On January 31, 2018, the jury found Stephen Allwine guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. The district court sentenced him to life without the possibility of release.
Postconviction History
In May 2018, Allwine filed a direct appeal with our court. On September 28, 2018, while his direct appeal was pending, CBS News aired an episode of 48 Hours—titled “Click for a Killer: Part I.” The episode featured the Allwine case, and included interviews
On August 1, 2019, Allwine filed a petition for postconviction relief.9 Three weeks later, on August 20, 2019, Allwine made a request for funds under
On July 8, 2020, Allwine filed another motion for funds under
On September 21, 2020, the district court issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and an Order denying Allwine‘s petition for postconviction relief.13 Four days later, on September 25, 2020, Allwine filed a motion to set aside the district court‘s findings of fact and filed a third motion for funds under
On October 16, 2020, the district court denied Allwine‘s motion, which it construed as a motion to reconsider its order denying postconviction relief. It also denied Allwine‘s July 8, 2020 and September 25, 2020 motions for funds. The court concluded that Allwine
On November 9, 2020, Allwine filed a second motion to reconsider the district court‘s findings of fact in the September 2020 order denying postconviction relief. In support of this motion, Allwine submitted an affidavit from a medical expert, challenging parts of the testimony the State‘s medical examiner provided during Allwine‘s trial. On November 23, 2020, the district court denied Allwine‘s second motion to reconsider its order denying his petition for postconviction relief. On December 3, 2020, Allwine filed a third motion to reconsider the postconviction order denying relief. In support of this third motion, Allwine submitted an affidavit from a digital forensic expert, challenging some of the statements made in the affidavit submitted by Allwine‘s trial counsel.14 On December 17, 2020, before the district court ruled on his third reconsideration motion, Allwine filed an appeal with our court from the district court‘s September 2020 order denying postconviction relief. The next day, the district court denied Allwine‘s third motion to reconsider, reasoning that the case was before our court and, consequently, its “authority is suspended due to an appeal.”
On December 22, 2020, we consolidated Allwine‘s stayed direct appeal with his postconviction appeal. State v. Allwine, Nos. A18-0846, A20-1588, Order at 2–3 (Minn. filed Dec. 22, 2020).
On appeal, Allwine presents four arguments. He argues (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the jury‘s verdict that he is guilty of first-degree premeditated murder; (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) an evidentiary hearing must be held to review the opinions of the two experts whose affidavits were submitted with the motions to reconsider to determine whether a new trial is warranted. We consider each in turn.
I.
The first issue we address is whether sufficient evidence supports the jury‘s verdict that Allwine is guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine “whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Moore, 481 N.W.2d 355, 360 (Minn. 1992).
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence, however, warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010). This heightened scrutiny requires us to consider whether the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved support a rational hypothesis other than guilt. See State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002). “Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” Id.
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty” and must also be “inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” State v. Fox, 868 N.W.2d 206, 223 (Minn. 2015) (emphasis added). The State was required to prove at trial that Stephen acted with premeditation and intent when he caused Amy‘s death.
Allwine claims only four facts are consistent with the hypothesis of his guilt: (1) He was married to Amy, (2) Amy was found dead at the home she shared with him, (3) he could not be excluded as a contributor to the DNA found on the gun at the scene, and (4) he was home with Amy for much of the day on which she was killed. Allwine also argues there are many circumstances proved that are inconsistent with the hypothesis of his guilt. The State counters that Allwine‘s characterization of the circumstances proved is “woefully inadequate” and ignores many facts in record that are consistent with the jury‘s verdict. We agree with the State here. Both of Allwine‘s claims are incorrect.
First, the circumstances proved in this case are as follows. On November 13, 2016, the day Amy was killed, Stephen awoke at the Allwine residence at approximately 6 a.m. and did not leave the residence until approximately 5 p.m. Stephen began working from his basement office that morning. At approximately 12:15–12:30 p.m., Amy told Stephen that she was experiencing dizziness, lightheadedness, and dry mouth. Amy then told Stephen she was going to bed to rest. Stephen‘s last employment activity was at approximately 12:51 p.m. Amy‘s father picked J.A. up from the Allwine residence at 2 p.m., leaving Stephen and Amy in the home. Based on the level of scopolamine found in Amy‘s system, the medical examiner agreed with the assessment that Amy died at 3:15 p.m. or earlier that day. Police also discovered a particle of gunshot residue on Stephen‘s right hand.
Second, Allwine‘s claim that there are many circumstances inconsistent with the hypothesis of his guilt misunderstands our circumstantial evidence analysis on review. As noted above, rather than consider circumstances inconsistent with guilt, as he asks us to do, we are bound to disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury‘s verdict when identifying the circumstances proved. See Harris, 895 N.W.2d at 601.
Next, we independently examine the reasonableness of all inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved. The circumstances proved support three reasonable
Second, the circumstances proved support the reasonable inference that Stephen drugged Amy with scopolamine. Because Amy did not have a prescription for scopolamine, because Stephen—as dogdayGod—was searching the dark web for scopolamine on the MacBook Pro laptop computer, and because a nontherapeutic amount of scopolamine was found in Amy‘s system after death, a reasonable inference arises that Stephen drugged Amy with scopolamine the day she died.
Last, the circumstances proved support the reasonable inference that Stephen was the person who used the handgun to shoot and kill Amy. The medical examiner testified that Amy died at 3:15 p.m. or earlier. Stephen told investigators he was the only person with Amy at that time, and even claimed he talked to her over an hour after her time of death. Law enforcement testified that the crime scene was inconsistent with a suicide, and Stephen‘s right hand tested positive for gunshot residue. These inferences are reasonable based on the circumstances proved.
II.
Second, we consider whether the facts alleged in the petition for postconviction relief, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, support a claim that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct. The district court concluded that the State did not and therefore denied Allwine‘s claim without an evidentiary hearing. We review the district court‘s denial of postconviction relief, including a denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion. State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493, 503 (Minn. 2013). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record. Id.
Allwine argues the prosecution committed misconduct by failing to disclose the third-party Yura confession, in violation of Minnesota‘s “very broad discovery rules” and Rule 3.8(g)–(h) of the American Bar Association‘s (ABA) Rules of Professional
Rule 9 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure governs evidentiary disclosure requirements. The rule requires the State to disclose exculpatory evidence at the defense‘s request and before the Rule 11 omnibus hearing.
Here, the record shows prosecutors exchanged several email communications with CBS News staff from January 2018 to September 2018, but none of the communications included exculpatory evidence.16 Allwine‘s claim that the State violated “broad discovery
Accordingly, even if the facts Allwine alleges in his petition for postconviction relief were proven at an evidentiary hearing, Allwine‘s prosecutorial misconduct claim fails as a matter of law. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Allwine‘s prosecutorial misconduct claim without an evidentiary hearing.
III.
Third, we determine whether the facts Allwine alleged in his petition for postconviction relief, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, support a claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. “Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve mixed questions of law and fact, our review of decisions by the postconviction court is de novo.” Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414, 420 (Minn. 2004). Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are governed by “the two-prong test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).” Nicks, 831 N.W.2d at 504 (applying Strickland in the context of a postconviction petition seeking a new trial based on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim). Strickland requires a petitioner to show that (1)
Allwine provides three reasons why his counsel was ineffective.18 First, he argues his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed “to use an expert to develop alternative perpetrator theory and to present alternative perpetrator evidence” against two persons. He also argues his trial counsel was ineffective because his trial counsel “did not consult with a medical examiner nor did he present the testimony of a medical examiner.” Last, he contends his trial counsel was ineffective because his trial counsel failed “to use [a] computer forensic expert.” In arguing that the district court erred when it failed to order a
In reviewing whether the district court abused its discretion here, we consider the information available to the district court at the time the court issued its order denying postconviction relief. Cf. State v. Jenkins, 782 N.W.2d 211, 231 (Minn. 2010) (rejecting a police misconduct argument that “was not made to the district court at the time it was considering admission of the motive evidence.“). When the district court issued its September 2020 order denying Allwine‘s petition for postconviction relief, the two affidavits had not yet been presented to it. Allwine‘s reliance on the affidavits is misplaced and, therefore, his ineffective assistance of counsel argument on appeal cannot prevail. Therefore, the district court did not err when it denied Allwine‘s petition for postconviction relief.
In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Allwine‘s three reconsideration motions because such motions cannot introduce new evidence into the record. See Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., 560 N.W.2d 712, 715–16 (Minn. App. 1997) (rejecting attempt to supplement record with affidavit submitted in support of motion to reconsider), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 1997). Although we have never squarely considered whether a motion for reconsideration can introduce new evidence into the
For the foregoing reasons, the district court did not err when it denied the petition for postconviction relief and the motions for reconsideration.
Finally, we determine whether an evidentiary hearing must be held to review the opinions of two experts21 to determine if a new trial is warranted.22 As previously mentioned, Allwine improperly submitted the affidavits from the two experts with his motions for reconsideration. Accordingly, Allwine is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to consider the opinions of the two experts.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the decision of the district court that denied Allwine‘s petition for postconviction relief.
Affirmed.