After nine years, a Boy Scout leader can prove to be an ineffective liar and vicious sex offender!

2016-M-334        Kent Richard Jones, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

BACKGROUND: On February 24, 1992, Linda Jensen was raped and murdered in her rural Sherburne County home while her baby slept in the next room and her husband was at work.  No suspect was found at the time.  But neighbor Jones denied knowing Jensen.

In 2000, investigators received a tip that Jones had known Jensen casually and briefly before her murder.  The Investigation continued.  Jones’ wife revealed that Jensen had even visited her and Jones in their whom to inquire about signing her other child up for the Boy Scout troop led by Jones.

In May 2001, Jones was indicted on three charges: first-degree murder while committing criminal sexual conduct; second-degree intentional murder; and first-degree criminal sexual conduct.

In December 2001, a jury found Jones guilty of all three charges.

In2004, the Supreme Court reversed Jones’ conviction because the district court used the wrong legal standard when excluding alternative-perpetrator evidence proffered by Jones.

In November 2006, Jones was tried a second time and found guilty of the same three charges.

In 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed Jones’ first-degree murder conviction on direct appeal.

In August 2015, Jones filed this petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his conviction should be reversed because certain medical journal articles and an opinion written by a county medical examiner allegedly contradict the trial testimony of the State’s medical examiner.

The post-conviction court denied Jones’ petition without granting an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the petition was untimely under the 2-year statute of limitations.

The court also concluded that the petition was procedurally barred by the Knaffla rule, which bars consideration of post-conviction claims that were known or should have been known to the petitioner at the time of direct appeal.

Finally, the court noted that Jones’ post-conviction claims “do not require additional factual information for resolution and have no support or basis in any of the records reviewed by the court.”

HELD:  The post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's petition for post-conviction relief as untimely under the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for filing a petition for post-conviction relief is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law as applied to appellant. The Minnesota statute which allows dismissal of criminal actions does not apply to post-conviction proceedings.

Lillehaug (Gildea, Anderson, Dietzen, Stras, Hudson, and Chutich)

               [CRIME] [MURDER] [PREMEDITATED] [FIRST-DEGREE] [SEX]

Date: August 10, 2016