In Hall v. State,[1] the appellate court held that due process prohibits application of a statutory bar on successive petitions when a defendant is raising a post-conviction relief claim based on newly discovered evidence of innocence that was not previously available to the defendant. Defendant Brian Hall was convicted in 1993 of first- and second- degree murder for shooting occupants of another car. Hall claimed self-defense and testified that Monica Shelton, witness to the events, warned him that the victims had a gun, but his defense failed after she equivocated at trial on whether she had in fact said any such thing to Hall. Seventeen years later, an investigator interviewed Shelton who expressed that she did warn Hall and was willing to set the record straight. Hall, who had previously and unsuccessfully applied twice for post-conviction relief on ineffective assistance of counsel claims, filed his third application for post-conviction relief, this time based on newly discovered evidence. The superior court dismissed his application because of an absolute statutory bar on successive petitions for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the appellate court held that a defendant is entitled under due process to bring a post-conviction claim for relief in what would otherwise qualify as a successive petition if the defendant is able to establish that the claim is based on newly discovered evidence. However, because the State had argued that Hall failed to establish a claim of newly discovered evidence, the case was remanded to determine that issue. The appellate court held that due process prohibits application of a statutory bar on successive petitions for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence.
[1] 446 P.3d 373 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
