Andersen v. State
| Decision Date | 14 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | A20-1602, A22-0057 |
| Citation | 982 N.W.2d 448 |
| Parties | Kenneth Eugene ANDERSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Zachary A. Longsdorf, Longsdorf Law Firm, PLC, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, for appellant.
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Ed Stockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Brian McDonald, Becker County Attorney, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
Following trial, a jury found appellant Kenneth Andersen guilty of the first-degree premeditated murder of Chad Swedberg. Before us now is the question of whether the postconviction court erred in denying Andersen's third and fourth petitions for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. Andersen claims that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing to consider three pieces of evidence: (1) shell casings recovered from the site of the murder; (2) an affidavit from Ju.F. claiming that she saw someone put a rifle in Andersen's barn; and (3) an affidavit from D.K. that he observed Swedberg's wife L.F. and L.F.’s son Je.F. driving around at a time when they claimed to have heard gunshots. Andersen also argues that we should use our supervisory powers to grant a new trial in the interests of justice. The postconviction court summarily denied Andersen's petition, concluding that none of the three pieces of "newly discovered" evidence satisfied the factors articulated in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(2) (2022), nor did the evidence fall under the "interests of justice" exception in in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(5) (2022). The court also denied Andersen's request for a new trial. We affirm.
In 2008, a jury found appellant Kenneth Eugene Andersen guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, see Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2022), for the April 2007 shooting death of Chad Swedberg in Becker County. Our opinion in State v. Andersen (Andersen I ) describes the details of the murder. 784 N.W.2d 320, 323–26 (Minn. 2010). We recite only the pertinent facts here.
On the morning of April 13, 2007, Swedberg was shot while tending to his maple syruping site in rural Becker County. Swedberg's wife, L.F., testified that she heard gunshots shortly before 8:13 a.m. Concerned, she attempted to contact Swedberg multiple times on her cell phone, then finally decided to head out to the syruping site to check on him. When L.F. reached the site, she found Swedberg lying on the ground unconscious. L.F. called 911, but Swedberg was already dead. Law enforcement officials conducted an investigation that involved sweeping the murder scene and interviewing witnesses. The investigators narrowed in on Andersen after he provided a series of inconsistent statements.
Investigators later secured a search warrant for Andersen's property. Andersen told the investigators that he owned several firearms, but he did not volunteer that he had a .30-caliber rifle. At this time the general public was unaware that Swedberg had been shot with a .30-caliber rifle. Andersen consented to the search of the home, but became agitated when officers proceeded to search the outbuildings on the property. The investigators’ search of the outbuilding revealed a Tikka T3 Lite .300 Winchester short magnum rifle—a gun capable of shooting .30-caliber bullets—concealed under the insulation in one of the outbuildings. Andersen's palm print was found on the Tikka rifle. Swedberg had purchased that gun for Andersen in 2006.1 Investigators also found bullets in the home. A firearms examiner concluded that the Tikka rifle found in Andersen's outbuilding was capable of firing the bullets removed from Swedberg's body. The examiner also concluded that the bullets found in Andersen's home had characteristics similar to the bullets removed from Swedberg's body.
Andersen was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. Andersen filed a direct appeal, and we affirmed his conviction. Andersen I , 784 N.W.2d at 323. In Andersen's first postconviction petition, he alleged seven separate grounds for relief, including newly discovered evidence, violations of the Confrontation Clause, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Andersen v. State (Andersen II ), 830 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 2013). The postconviction court denied Andersen's petition without a hearing and we affirmed. Id. at 14.
Andersen subsequently filed a second petition for postconviction relief, claiming newly discovered evidence in the form of multiple violations of the ruling in Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), ineffective assistance of counsel, and a request for a new trial in the interests of justice. Andersen v. State (Andersen III ), 913 N.W.2d 417, 419 (Minn. 2018). The petition, in part, was based on information obtained by an investigator, who talked with A.B. as part of his investigation. A.B. informed the investigator that he had found cigarette butts and two spent shell-casings at the syruping site at some point after the murder. The second petition also contained statements by S.W., a witness who claimed she saw L.F., Je.F., and a brother in a white vehicle between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. the day of the murder.
The district court initially denied Andersen's second petition for postconviction relief, finding the witness affidavits submitted not credible. We remanded the case after determining the district court improperly made credibility judgments without first holding an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 424.
At the evidentiary hearing, A.B. denied finding shell casings at the scene. Another witness, S.W., testified that she was "pretty confident" that she had seen L.F. driving through White Earth in a white vehicle with Je.F. and an unknown third man the morning of the murder. Je.F. also testified, stating that he thought he mentioned seeing cigarette butts in the location where the shooter may have hidden and that he thought he mentioned it to law enforcement. Following the hearing, the district court denied Andersen's petition. We affirmed. Andersen v. State (Andersen IV ), 940 N.W.2d 172, 176 (Minn. 2020).
In May 2020, Andersen filed a third postconviction petition, alleging newly discovered evidence regarding shell casings recovered from the scene of the murder, Brady violations, and that he should be granted a new trial in the interests of justice. The postconviction court determined that Andersen could have or should have known of the shell casing claim in 2014 following his investigator's interview with A.B. Because the claim was not raised within 2 years of 2014, the court ruled that Andersen's claim was time-barred. The district court also determined that, even if the claim had been raised prior to 2016, the shells failed to constitute newly discovered evidence regardless and were also time-barred for that reason. The postconviction court concluded that it was inexcusable error to not raise his shell casings argument earlier. For the same reason, the postconviction court also determined Andersen's claims were Knaffla -barred. See State v. Knaffla , 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976) (). Therefore, the postconviction court denied Andersen's third postconviction petition.
Andersen appealed on December 18, 2020, but requested we stay the appeal to give him time to file his fourth postconviction petition. The stay was granted on May 7, 2021.
In May 2021, Andersen filed his fourth postconviction petition. The petition alleged newly discovered evidence in the form of a letter from Ju.F. claiming to have witnessed P.H.W. dropping off a firearm at Andersen's residence sometime in April 2007. It also included a motion for an order directing the State to compare fingerprints on the Tikka rifle to any fingerprints of P.H.W. Andersen later amended the petition to include allegations made in a letter that Andersen's fellow inmate, D.K., submitted to the court. D.K. claimed to have seen L.F. and Je.F. driving to Je.F.’s workplace on the morning of Swedberg's murder.
The postconviction court determined that Ju.F.’s evidence was cumulative, merely impeaching, and did not establish Andersen's actual innocence. The court rejected the request for fingerprint testing as well, stating that not only did Andersen fail to show that the now-deceased P.H.W. has fingerprints on file to compare, but even if there was a positive identification of P.H.W.’s fingerprint on the Tikka rifle, any testing would not show Andersen's innocence by clear and convincing evidence. The court rejected D.K.’s letter as newly discovered evidence, finding that it was both cumulative and offered merely for impeachment purposes. Finally, the court concluded that Andersen's petition did not meet the interests of justice exception. Therefore, the postconviction court denied Andersen's fourth conviction petition without a hearing.
Andersen appealed and we consolidated the third and fourth petitions.
We review a summary denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion. Griffin v. State , 961 N.W.2d 773, 776 (Minn. 2021). An abuse of discretion is "based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Eason v. State , 950 N.W.2d 258, 264 (Minn. 2020). In reviewing the summary denial, we take the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the petitioner. Griffin, 961 N.W.2d at 776.
The issue here is whether the postconviction court abused its discretion in dismissing Andersen's petition without an evidentiary hearing. A petitioner is entitled to a hearing "[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial