Cited by

“An evidentiary hearing is- not required unless ‘the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.’ ” ().

he 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.” ().

“An ‘evidentiary hearing is not required unless the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.’ ” ()

“An ‘evidentiary hearing is not required unless the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.’ ” (); .

Based on these findings, (explaining that the third requirement of the newly discovered evidence test is that the evidence not be “cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful”).

Carridine, d at 496 () (quotation marks omitted).

4(b)(2) (2014); (holding that a new trial may be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence when the defendant proves “(1) that the evidence was not known to the defendant or his/her counsel at the time of the trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial

d 692, 695 (Minn. 1997) (postconviction petition); -34 (Minn. App. 1989) (motion to correct sentence).

7 -92 (Minn. App. 2014) (considering a postconviction claim of newly discovered evidence following a guilty plea), review denied (Minn. Jan.

a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) that the evidence was not known to the defendant or his/her counsel at the time of the trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial; (3) that the evidence is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal or a more favorable result.”

1 The second 1 with the Larrison test.

granted when a defendant proves: “(1) that the evidence was not known to the defendant or his/her counsel at the time of the trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial; (3) that the evidence is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal or a more favorable result.”

We affirmed, 4 (Minn. 1997), and that Fort failed to meet the threshold for new forensic testing because he “made no assertion that new technology ha[d] been developed to render the sample from the 12-inch smear capable of demonstrating Fort’s ‘actual innocence.’ ” Fort II, 82

A defendant is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on a newly discovered evidence claim if he alleges facts that, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, which requires that the new evidence: (1) was not known to the petitioner or his or her counsel at the time of trial; (2) could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial; *92 (3) is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) would probably produce an acquittal or a more favora

Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court determined that, because the witnesses who testified on Bobo’s behalf were not credible