If your appeal relies on witnesses showing up at a hearing, you should make sure that they show up!

2015-M-304       Rene Julian McKenzie, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

This case comes to us on appeal from the denial of Rene Julian McKenzie’s petition for post-conviction relief.  McKenzie filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on two third-party affidavits, alleging that a witness had recanted his trial testimony.  The post-conviction court granted an evidentiary hearing to determine the credibility of the alleged recantation.  At the hearing, the assistant county attorney informed the trial witness who allegedly recanted of the consequences should he testify falsely.  The trial witness and the affiants invoked their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and the post-conviction court refused to grant use immunity to appellant’s witnesses.  Following the hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, explaining that it was not well satisfied that the trial witness’s testimony was false.  McKenzie appeals, arguing the State violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by substantially interfering with the decisions of his witnesses about whether to testify at the post-conviction hearing.  He also argues that the post-conviction court erred by not granting use immunity to his witnesses and by finding that he presented insufficient evidence to warrant a new trial.  Because McKenzie failed to prove that the State substantially interfered with the witnesses’ decisions about whether to testify, and because the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant use immunity or by denying the post-conviction petition, we affirm.

HELD:  1. Because appellant failed to prove that the State substantially interfered with the decisions of appellant’s witnesses regarding whether to testify at the post-conviction hearing, appellant’s constitutional claims fail. 

2. Because appellant did not prove that the State’s actions constituted “egregious misconduct” under State v. Peirce, 364 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1985), the post-conviction court properly refused to grant use immunity to appellant’s witnesses. 

3. Because appellant produced insufficient evidence to satisfy the post-conviction court that a trial witness’s testimony was false, the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s request for a new trial. 

 Affirmed.

Gildea (Anderson, Dietzen, Stras, Wright, and Lillehaug)

Took no part:  Hudson

[MURDER] GILDEA]

A14-1395,