Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A09 - 0183

Rice County District Court

Anderson, Paul H., J.

Brett Randall Walen, Respondent, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant. ________________________ Kyle D. White, St. Paul, Minnesota, for appellant. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and G. Paul Beaumaster, Rice County Attorney, Faribault, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ SYLLABUS The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed a petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing when the allegedly nondisclosed forensic report was not material and therefore did not result in a due process violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and the report did not contain newly discovered, exculpatory evidence. Affirmed. Filed: January 14, 2010 Office of Appellate Courts

1

OPINION ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice. Brett Randall Walen appeals the postconviction court's summary denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Walen asserts that before his trial the State failed to disclose a report prepared by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Walen argues that the failure to disclose this report violates Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and he is therefore entitled to a new trial. Walen also argues in the alternative that the same report is newly discovered, exculpatory evidence entitling him to a new trial. Because the report is not material under a Brady or newly-discovered-exculpatoryevidence analysis, we hold that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walen's petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing On May 23, 1995, a jury found the petitioner, Brett Randall Walen, guilty of firstdegree premeditated murder under Minn. Stat.

Download A09-183, Brett Randall Walen, Respondent, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant..pdf

Minnesota Law