State v. Beach
Decision Date | 14 May 2013 |
Docket Number | DA 11-0723 |
Parties | STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BARRY ALLAN BEACH, Defendant and Appellee.1 |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
BARRY ALLAN BEACH, Defendant and Appellee.1
DA 11-0723
Supreme Court of Montana
FILED May 14 2013
In 1979, Kimberly Nees was bludgeoned to death, and her body was found floating in the Poplar River. In 1983, Barry Beach confessed to law enforcement that he had murdered Nees. A jury trial was conducted in 1984, and Beach was convicted of deliberate homicide. His conviction was affirmed on appeal in 1985. In 1995, he filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied by the District Court and likewise denied on appeal. In 1997, Beach filed for relief in federal court, and was denied by the federal district and circuit courts. In 2008, Beach filed another petition for postconviction relief in state court. Although beyond the permissible time for filing a petition, Beach alleged there was new evidence that demonstrated he was innocent of the crime, and thus his claim was not barred by the passage of legal deadlines. The District Court summarily denied Beach's motion. On appeal, we reversed and remanded for the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence. In August 2011, the District Court took testimony from witnesses who suggested that a group of teenage girls had killed Nees. Based on this new evidence, the District Court granted Beach a new trial. The State of Montana appealed this decision to the Montana Supreme Court.
In a 4-3 decision, the Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the District Court erred by (1) applying the wrong legal standards to Beach's innocence claim, and (2) failing to conduct a proper review of the evidence of the crime. The District Court ruled that Beach had prevailed on a "gateway" innocence claim. A successful "gateway" claim entitles a defendant to pass by the law's usual time deadlines and present his claims of constitutional trial error in a hearing. If a defendant proves at a hearing that his original trial was flawed by error, then he is entitled to a new trial. The District Court improperly granted Beach a new trial without first requiring...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Beach
-
Giddings v. Kirkegard
... JOSHUA DAVID GIDDINGS, Petitioner, v. LEROY KIRKEGARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Respondents. No. CV 16-26-H-DLC-JTJ United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division October 28, 2021 ... information in light of the evidence presented at trial ... Id ... at ¶¶ 28-29, citing State v ... Beach , 2013 MT 130, ¶ 78. The court did not address ... any of the information Neuhaus reportedly supplied to ... Fullerton ... ...
-
Wilkes v. State
...newly discovered evidence claim. Specifically, we stated that neither the actual-innocence standard of the concurrence in State v. Beach, 2013 MT 130, 370 Mont. 163, 302 P.3d 47, nor the reasonable-probability-of-a-different-outcome standard of State v. Clark, 2005 MT 330, 330 Mont. 8, 125 ......
-
Wilkes v. State, DA 14-0336
...newly discovered evidence claim. Specifically, we stated that neither the actual-innocence standard of the concurrence in State v. Beach, 2013 MT 130, 370 Mont. 163, 302 P.3d 47, nor the reasonable-probability-of-a-different-outcome standard of State v. Clark, 2005 MT 330, 330 Mont. 8, 125 ......