Cited by

The opportunity to observe a witness during an evidentiary hearing puts the district court “in the best position to evaluate witness credibility.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Showing clear error is a “high threshold.” Bobo v. State , (quotation omitted).

This finding is not clearly erroneous, (stating that the postconviction court’s credibility determinations are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard ), as it is supported by Jones’s own written waiver of his jury trial rights and Jones’s responses to questioning by the court and trial counsel confirming that his decision was m

See Bobo v. State , (stating that we review a postc onviction court’s credibility determination for clear error).

A dist rict court abuses its discretion “when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” Bobo v. State

See State v. Bobo (Bobo I ), Bobo v. State (Bobo II), Bobo v. State (Bobo III)

(stating that appellate courts review credibility determinations made by the district court during p ostconviction proceedings “under the clearly erroneous standard”).

We do not disturb the district court’s credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, which is a “high threshold.” Bobo v. State , -85 (Minn. 2015); State v. Miller , (stating that weight and believability of witnesses is is sue for district court to which we defer) , review denied 6 (Minn. July 15, 2003).

We begin by emphasizing that the district court “is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility,” and we will not disturb those findings so long as they are supported by “reasonable evidence .” Bobo v. State , -85 (Minn. 2015).

But “[t]o meet the materiality requirement, the evidence submitted must be credible.”

Carridine v. State , (reviewing a postconviciton court’s witness credibility determinations on a clearly erroneous basis).

(“[T]he postconviction court is in the best position to evaluate w itness credibility”) (quotation omitted).

–85 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

But “[b]ecause the postconviction court is in the best posit ion to evaluate witness credibility, we review its credibility determinations under the clearly erroneous standard.” Bobo v. State , (citation and quotation omitted).

15, 2016), (stating that this court reviews credibility determinations under the “high threshold” of the clear error standard).

“Because the postc onviction court is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility, we review its credibility determinations under the clearly erroneous standard.” (citations and quotation omitted).

e of newly discovered evidence if he can prove that: (1) the evidence was not known to the defendant or defense counsel at the time of trial; (2) the evidence cou ld not have been discovered through due diligence prior to trial; (3) the evidence is not “cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful”; and (4) “the evidence would probably produce an acquittal or a more favorable result.” ().

“Because the postconviction court is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility, [an appellate court] review[s the] credibility determinations under the clearly erroneous standard.” (quotation and citation omitted); (“In order for a credibility determination to be clearly erroneous, we must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted)).