Miles v. State

50 Citing cases

  1. Ezeka v. State

    No. A23-1827 (Minn. Feb. 5, 2025)

    The district court correctly determined that the juror's affidavit did not satisfy the requirements of newly discovered evidence because it was inadmissible in any proceeding as a matter of law. See Miles v. State, 840 N.W.2d 195, 203 (Minn. 2013) (stating that the district court properly rejected a claim of newly discovered evidence because the evidence was substantively inadmissible). We have long held that "a jury's deliberations must remain inviolate and its verdict may not be reviewed or set aside on the basis of affidavits or testimony concerning that which transpired in the course of those deliberations."

  2. State v. Gilleylen

    993 N.W.2d 266 (Minn. 2023)   Cited 11 times

    District court evidentiary rulings are subject to an abuse of discretion standard on review. Miles v. State , 840 N.W.2d 195, 204 (Minn. 2013). But we use a de novo review standard in determining whether the admission of evidence violates a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause.

  3. Caldwell v. State

    976 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2022)   Cited 12 times

    He also stated that the person shooting from Caldwell's vehicle was in the front passenger seat. Because "[t]he postconviction court is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility," Miles v. State, 840 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2013), we will not disturb the postconviction court's findings of fact if "reasonable evidence" supports those findings. State v. Evans, 756 N.W.2d 854, 870 (Minn. 2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

  4. Dolo v. State

    942 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2020)   Cited 24 times

    We review the denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion. Miles v. State , 840 N.W.2d 195, 200 (Minn. 2013). A postconviction court abuses its discretion when the court’s "decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record."

  5. Griffin v. State

    941 N.W.2d 404 (Minn. 2020)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that petitioner's Brady claim failed to meet the newly discovered evidence exception to the time-bar, because, even taking the allegations as true, the evidence did not establish that he was innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted

    The district court is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility, and we defer to those determinations absent a clear error. Miles v. State , 840 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2013). The district court considered Griffin’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing and did not find it credible.

  6. State v. Mosley

    895 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 2017)   Cited 87 times
    Concluding that challenge to trial counsel's failure to object to in-court identification was "legally insufficient to show that . . . attorney's performance was unreasonable," because decision amounted to trial strategy

    1997). If the defendant fails to establish any one of these requirements, we need not discuss any of the others. Miles v. State , 840 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2013).Here, two of the affiants swear that they spoke with Mosley's defense counsel before trial. Specifically, the affiants allege that they were contacted by defense counsel, and that they told counsel and the defense investigator they were willing to testify, but they were not called as witnesses.

  7. Pearson v. State

    891 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. 2017)   Cited 175 times
    Stating a ruling based on an erroneous view of the law is an abuse of discretion

    Rainer , 566 N.W.2d at 695 (emphasis added). Because the requirements of the Rainer test are stated in the conjunctive, Pearson must satisfy all four. Miles v. State , 840 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2013). Pearson contends that the record does not support the postconviction court's finding that J.B.'s testimony was doubtful.

  8. Jackson v. State

    883 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2016)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that because of the passage of 10 years and a lack of a record on the juvenile offender's youthful characteristics, a fair and meaningful Miller /Montgomery hearing was not possible and remanding to the district court for imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 30 years

    A postconviction court “abuse[s] its discretion when the postconviction court's ‘decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.’ ” Miles v. State, 840 N.W.2d 195, 200 (Minn.2013) (quoting Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn.2012) ).

  9. Carridine v. State

    867 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 2015)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that purported failures to investigate or call additional witnesses were not ineffective assistance of counsel when petitioner failed to show "anything other than cumulative and non-material evidence would have been admitted"

    The testimony of Madison and Hill is questionable at best, and the postconviction court's finding that the witnesses lacked credibility was not clearly erroneous.See Miles v. State, 840 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn.2013) (“The postconviction court is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility and so we defer to the court's credibility determinations.”). We therefore hold that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Carridine's newly discovered evidence claim.

  10. Bobo v. State

    860 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. 2015)   Cited 29 times
    Stating that the postconviction court's credibility determinations are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard

    Race v. State, 504 N.W.2d 214, 217–18 (Minn.1993). Because “[t]he postconviction court is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility,” Miles v. State, 840 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn.2013), we review its credibility determinations under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Ali, 855 N.W.2d 235, 245 (Minn.2014).