2007-M-039
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Quanartis DaLee Turnage, Appellant.
THE CRIME:
On March 2, 2004, Turnage and Wa Vang argued about $100 that Vang may have owed
Turnage on a rent refund. Police were called and settled the disruption.
On March 24, 2004, Turnage, his brother Quantez, and
their friend Damien Robinson took a heavily-inebriated Vang away in a
car. Vang had served his kidnappers as a translator in their drug
operations.
Quantez and Robinson later testified that Turnage stabbed
Vang 38 times with two or three knives and many times with a screwdriver, and
bashed Vang’s skull repeatedly his head repeatedly with a bat.
Quantez and Robinson both pleaded guilty to intentional
second-degree murder and received sentences of 339 and 299 months respectively.
Turnage was convicted in 2005 of two counts of
first-degree murder (intentional murder during a kidnapping and premeditated
murder) and one count of intentional second-degree murder in connection with
the death of Wa Vang.
FIRST APPEAL:
On January 28, 2007, The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Turnage’s direct
appeal. Turnage had argued that Vang’s confinement and transportation
were too brief to constitute a murder during a kidnapping. Turnage also
contested the prosecution’s use of tapes of Turnage’s phone calls to
accomplices from the county jail.
The unanimous en banc decision was delivered by Justice
Sam Hanson.
THIS APPEAL:
While Turnage’s direct appeal was pending, Quantez recanted the testimony he
gave at Turnage’s trial. Turnage filed a petition for post-conviction
relief, which the post-conviction court denied without holding an evidentiary
hearing.
The question presented in this appeal is whether Turnage
is entitled to a new trial, or at a minimum to an evidentiary post-conviction
hearing, based on Quantez’s recantation. Turnage has the burden of
proving that he is entitled to the relief requested. The majority applied
a three-prong test known as the Larrison test to determine whether a petition
for post-conviction relief warrants a new trial based on recantation of trial
testimony.
THE MAJORITY A petitioner is entitled to a new trial due
to witness recantation of trial testimony if (1) the court is reasonably
well-satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness was false; (2)
without the testimony, the jury might have reached a different conclusion; and
(3) the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false
testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity
until after the trial.
“Based on this record, we hold that while the
post-conviction court did not articulate the correct legal formulation of the
second Larrison prong, the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition was
not an abuse of discretion. Because Turnage did not meet the second
prong of the Larrison test, the post-conviction court did not err in denying
Turnage’s petition and his request for an evidentiary hearing.”
DISSENT: Justices Hanson and Paul Anderson opined: “I
agree that Turnage had not yet satisfied his burden of proof to establish the
right to a new trial because the presentation of the handwritten recantation statement
by Quantez was not sufficient to do so. But they concluded that the
recantation statement is sufficient to entitle Turnage to an evidentiary
hearing.”
Gildea (Russell Anderson, Page,
Meyer, and Barry Anderson)
Dissent:
Hanson and Paul Anderson
DATE OF
DECISION: April 5, 2007
RECORD NUMBER:
2007-0
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER]
[GILDEA]
No comments:
Post a Comment