Materials - The Network of Trial Law Firms

test.” Martin v. State, No. A12-0089, slip op. at 14-15 (Jan. 30, 2013) (attached). UnderLarrison, a new trial is necessary when the court is reasonably well-satisfied that 1) the testimonyin question was false, 2) without the testimony, the jury might have reached a differentconclusion, and 3) the petitioner was surprised by the false testimony at trial or did not know ofits falsity until after trial. Id. (citing State v. Turnage, (Turnage II), 729 N.W.2d 593, 597 (Minn.2007)). “The third prong is relevant, but not an ‘absolute condition precedent’ to a new trial.”Martin, slip op. at 10 (citing Opsahl v. State, (Opsahl II), 710 N.W.2d 776, 782 (Minn. 2006)).The postconviction court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the petition whendetermining whether to grant a hearing. See Minn. Stat. § 590.04 (A postconviction hearing isrequired unless the evidence presented, considered in the light most favorable to the petitioner,conclusively show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief). Moreover, “an evidentiary hearingis often necessary to resolve credibility determinations regarding a recanting witness’sssconflicting statements.” Martin, slip op. at 10 (citations omitted).Martin’s claim of witness recantation was markedly similar to Olson’s claim of Todd’srecantation. Like Olson, Martin filed a petition for postconviction approximately two years hismurder conviction was affirmed. In that petition, Martin raised a number of claims, including anassertion that the two eyewitnesses who identified Martin as the shooter had recanted. Martin,slip op. at 7.The first witness, Pettis, testified at trial that he saw Martin and his co-defendant,Jackson, with guns and running toward the house where the victim was found dead. Id. at 12.Pettis claimed that after hearing the gunshots, he saw Martin and Jackson get into a white car andflee the scene. Id. Pettis later provided an affidavit, stating he “wished to make a wrong right,”