State v. Rhodes
2001 WL 619628, 2001 Minn. LEXIS 345, 627 N.W.2d 74 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to a postconviction evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when they allege material facts, which are in dispute and supported by evidence like affidavits, that if proven would entitle them to relief. Doubts about whether to conduct a hearing should be resolved in favor of the party requesting it.
Facts:
- On the night of August 2, 1996, Thomas Rhodes and his wife, Jane, took their jet boat out on Green Lake while on vacation.
- According to Rhodes, while he was driving at approximately 40 miles per hour, Jane, who was not a good swimmer and wore no life jacket, stood up and accidentally fell overboard.
- Rhodes stated he searched for her before returning to the Northern Inn for help, where a clerk described him as 'emotionally distressed' but a bar bouncer who saw him walk to the inn described him as not agitated.
- Rhodes directed law enforcement to a search area he claimed was 1,000 yards offshore, but physically pointed to a location only 400-500 yards out.
- The next day, Jane's body was discovered by fishermen nine-tenths of a mile northwest of the point Rhodes had identified for the search.
- Jane's body was found near an area where seven shore witnesses had observed a boat matching Rhodes's driving erratically; one witness heard a woman's voice say, 'Stop. No. It hurts.'
- A forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael McGee, testified that Jane had injuries consistent with defensive wounds on her forearms and internal neck hemorrhages that he believed could have been caused by a hand in a 'V position.'
- Evidence showed the Rhodes' debt had recently doubled and they had acquired over $100,000 in new life insurance on Jane in the four months preceding her death. Rhodes had also previously consulted an attorney about divorce and had a nonsexual extramarital relationship a year prior.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the district court convicted Thomas Rhodes of first- and second-degree murder.
- Rhodes filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which the district court denied.
- Rhodes filed a notice of appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court granted Rhodes's motion to stay the appeal and remand the case to allow him to file a petition for postconviction relief.
- Rhodes filed a petition for postconviction relief in the district court, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The postconviction court (the same trial judge) dismissed the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
- Rhodes filed a motion for reconsideration with additional affidavits, which the postconviction court summarily denied.
- Rhodes moved to reinstate his appeal in the Minnesota Supreme Court, now challenging both his conviction and the denial of his postconviction petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant entitled to a postconviction evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when they allege facts, supported by affidavits, that raise material questions about their trial counsel's failure to investigate key witnesses and challenge expert medical testimony in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Blatz, Chief Justice
Yes. A defendant is entitled to a postconviction evidentiary hearing when they allege material facts that, if proven, would entitle them to relief on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Here, the state's case against Rhodes was entirely circumstantial, making the credibility of witnesses and experts paramount. Rhodes presented affidavits from two previously unknown witnesses (Hunter and Bauman) who contradicted the state's evidence regarding his demeanor and the number of boats on the lake. He also presented an affidavit from a forensic pathologist (Dr. Plunkett) offering medically supported, alternative explanations for his wife's injuries, which counsel failed to adequately explore or present. Because these allegations raise material questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of counsel's investigation and trial strategy, and because there is a reasonable probability they could have affected the outcome, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve them. The court affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings and denied a hearing on the change of venue claim, but remanded for a limited hearing on the claims related to the failure to investigate and the failure to challenge medical testimony.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for obtaining a postconviction evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Minnesota, emphasizing that a hearing is required when a petitioner raises material, disputed facts that could plausibly meet the Strickland test. By distinguishing the 'reasonable probability' standard for prejudice in ineffectiveness claims from the higher 'more likely than not' standard for newly discovered evidence, the court reinforces the principle that ineffectiveness claims challenge the fundamental fairness of the proceeding itself. The decision signals to lower courts that in wholly circumstantial cases, claims of un-investigated witnesses or unchallenged expert testimony are more likely to warrant a full evidentiary hearing, resolving doubts in favor of the petitioner.
