Do not leave footprints in the fresh snow that lead directly from the murder scene to your home next door when you have stabbed an 11-year-old burglary victim 44 times!
2015-M-281 Eugene Erick Fort, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
2015-M-281 Eugene Erick Fort, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Appellant Eugene Erick Fort was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree murder while committing burglary in connection with the 1990 stabbing death of 11-year-old Marcus Potts.
THE CRIME: In the early morning hours of December 15, 1990, 11-year-old Marcus Potts was stabbed 44 times and, as a result, died in his north Minneapolis home. Potts’s mother discovered her son’s body upon her return from work at approximately 2:00 a.m. She called 911 for assistance.
During the initial crime scene investigation, police officers noticed a set of footprints in the snow covering that was on the ground at the time of the murder. A police dog accompanying one of the officers followed the prints from a side door of the Potts’s home to a neighboring house, where Fort lived. This information led the police to focus on Fort as a suspect.
As part of their investigation, the police obtained and executed a search warrant for Fort’s home and interviewed Fort several times.
On December 27, 1990, the police obtained a second search warrant for Fort’s home. Using specialized equipment, which had not been available during the December 15 search, the police detected eight drops of blood in Fort’s home. But the blood samples were too small to be tested using the technology that was available in 1990. By 2001, DNA-testing technology had advanced sufficiently so that the samples could be tested.
The 2001 test results showed that the blood samples from Fort’s home matched Potts’s DNA. In addition to the DNA evidence, four witnesses told police investigators, and ultimately testified at trial that while Fort was in jail during the December 1990 investigation, he confessed that he murdered Potts.
THE CRIME: In the early morning hours of December 15, 1990, 11-year-old Marcus Potts was stabbed 44 times and, as a result, died in his north Minneapolis home. Potts’s mother discovered her son’s body upon her return from work at approximately 2:00 a.m. She called 911 for assistance.
During the initial crime scene investigation, police officers noticed a set of footprints in the snow covering that was on the ground at the time of the murder. A police dog accompanying one of the officers followed the prints from a side door of the Potts’s home to a neighboring house, where Fort lived. This information led the police to focus on Fort as a suspect.
As part of their investigation, the police obtained and executed a search warrant for Fort’s home and interviewed Fort several times.
On December 27, 1990, the police obtained a second search warrant for Fort’s home. Using specialized equipment, which had not been available during the December 15 search, the police detected eight drops of blood in Fort’s home. But the blood samples were too small to be tested using the technology that was available in 1990. By 2001, DNA-testing technology had advanced sufficiently so that the samples could be tested.
The 2001 test results showed that the blood samples from Fort’s home matched Potts’s DNA. In addition to the DNA evidence, four witnesses told police investigators, and ultimately testified at trial that while Fort was in jail during the December 1990 investigation, he confessed that he murdered Potts.
THE APPEALS: We affirmed Fort’s conviction for premeditated first-degree murder, but vacated Fort’s conviction for first-degree murder while committing burglary on the ground that a defendant may only be convicted of one count of first-degree murder in connection with the murder of a single victim.
We also affirmed the denial of Fort’s first petition for postconviction relief. in 2013.
In this, his second post-conviction appeal, Fort claims ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. He also claims that the State mishandled evidence. Because Fort’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel fails as a matter of law, and his remaining claims are time barred, the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying Fort’s petition. We therefore affirm
Page (Gildea, Anderson, Dietzen, Stras, Wright, and Lillehaug)
[MURDER]
No comments:
Post a Comment