282 Minn. 524 | Minn. | 1968
Defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree robbery in May 1954. During trial, the state introduced his pretrial confession obtained by the police over defendant’s objection that it had not been given voluntarily. The issue of voluntariness was heard separately by the trial judge and then submitted to the jury pursuant to the long-observed procedure outlined in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1, 15 N. W. (2d) 585. Ten years after the trial and following the decision of the United States Supreme Court in
We interpreted this action to mean that the rule of Jackson must be retroactively applied.
The state argues that in a postconviction hearing it need only prove that a confession was voluntary by a fair preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. That question is not raised and need not be
Affirmed.
State ex rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 141 N. W. (2d) 3.
As it now appears, “[t]he most persuasive authority for the proposition that the principle of Jackson v. Denno is to be applied to convictions finalized prior to the date of that decision is Jackson itself,” since that case involved a collateral attack on a previously finalized conviction. Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. Rundle, 416 Pa. 321, 326, 206 A. (2d) 283, 286. For further authority that Jackson v. Denno is to be applied retroactively, see Boles v. Stevenson, 379 U. S. 43, 85 S. Ct. 174, 13 L. ed (2d) 109; McNerlin v. Denno, 378 U. S. 575, 84 S. Ct. 1933, 12 L. ed. (2d) 1041; Clifton v. United States, 125 App. D. C. 257, 259, note 4, 371 F. (2d) 354, 356, note 4; People v. Huntley, 15 N. Y. (2d) 72, 255 N. Y. S. (2d) 838, 204 N. E. (2d) 179. See, also, Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 628, note 13, 85 S. Ct. 1731, 1737, note 13, 14 L. ed. (2d) 601, 608, note 13 (dicta); Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 416, 86 S. Ct. 459, 465, 15 L. ed. (2d) 453, 460 (dicta); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 727, 729, 86 S. Ct. 1772, 1778, 16 L. ed. (2d) 882, 889 (dicta).
The hearing before the original trial judge was in accordance with the recommendations of at least one commentator. See, Note, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 938, 1066; People v. Huntley, supra.