2010-M-167             James Leroy Scott, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

MAJORITY:  After a 1992 jury trial, appellant James Leroy Scott was found guilty and subsequently convicted of first-degree murder in Todd County District Court and sentenced to life in prison.  At trial, as it did in Gassler v. State, __ N.W.2d __ , 2010 WL 3430912 (Minn. Sept. 2, 2010), the State presented the testimony of an FBI agent who, relying on Composite Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA), testified that a pellet recovered from the victim’s body “could have” come from a box of ammunition tied to Scott and that the pellet from the victim’s body and pellets from the box of ammunition connected to Scott were likely manufactured by Federal Cartridge in Anoka, Minnesota, “on or about the same date.”  Scott’s conviction, which we affirmed on direct appeal, became final on March 11, 1993. 

In 2007, the FBI made it known that there was an “inability of scientists and manufacturers to definitively evaluate the significance of an association between bullet made in the course of a bullet lead examination.” 

On April 28, 2008, Scott filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he had been convicted based on false evidence.  However, under Minn. Stat. § 590.01 (2008), for anyone convicted before

August 1, 2005, petitions for post-conviction relief must be filed by July 31, 2007, unless one of the statute’s exceptions apply.  Scott claimed that two of the exceptions to the time bar applied in his case:  the newly discovered evidence exception and the interests of justice exception.  The post-conviction court held that neither exception applied and denied Scott’s petition as time barred.  For the reasons indicated below, we affirm.

First, an appellant who fails to establish his innocence by the clear and convincing standard as required by Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(2) (2008), is not entitled to have his petition for post-conviction relief considered under the newly discovered evidence exception to the time bar set out in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a) (2008).

Second, the interests of justice do not require that appellant’s untimely petition for post-conviction relief be considered.

HELD: T he admission of Agent Riley’s CBLA testimony did not make the trial so fundamentally unfair to Scott as to require us to act to protect the integrity of the judicial process.  Rather, given the nature and extent of that evidence, “we conclude that it would be a miscarriage of justice” to consider Scott’s petition under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(5), in the interests of justice.  State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 742 (Minn. 1998) (declining to reverse the defendant’s conviction despite the undisputed plain error in the jury instructions).  Therefore, we hold that the post-conviction court did not err when it declined to consider Scott’s petition in the interests of justice under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(5).

CONCUR:  Justices Gildea and Dietzen opined:  “For the reasons set forth in my concurrence in Gassler v. State, ___ N.W.2d ___, 2010 WL 3430912, at *10-13 (Minn. Sept. 2, 2010), I concur in the result.  

               Page  (Paul Anderson, Meyer, and Barry Anderson)

               Concur:  Gildea and Dietzen

               Took no part: Stras

               [MURDER]