State v. Antrim, No. A08-0548.
| Decision Date | 07 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. A08-0548. |
| Citation | 764 N.W.2d 67 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Cynthia Jean ANTRIM, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, and Robert M.A. Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Robert D. Goodell, Assistant County Attorney, Anoka, MN, for respondent.
Lawrence Hammerling, Chief Appellate Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.
Considered and decided by SHUMAKER, Presiding Judge; STONEBURNER, Judge; and COLLINS, Judge.*
The district court denied appellant's motion to suppress evidence. Because that issue was dispositive of the charge of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime, appellant sought to preserve the pretrial issue by stipulating to the prosecution's case, waiving a jury trial, and submitting the case to the district court for a decision. The district court found her guilty. Appellant asserts in this appeal that her conviction must be reversed because she was not adequately advised of, and did not waive, her right to call witnesses favorable to the defense. Appellant also seeks review of the denial of her motion to suppress.
Appellant Cynthia Jean Antrim was found behind some bushes on the property of an unoccupied house to which police officers had been dispatched in response to a report of a suspected burglary. The officers found Antrim's purse inside the house and discovered methamphetamine inside the purse. Antrim was charged with fifth-degree controlled-substance crime. Antrim moved to suppress evidence of the controlled substance, arguing that the search of her purse was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion.
In September 2007, Antrim agreed to submit her case to the district court on stipulated facts for a determination of guilt, preserving her right to appeal the denial of her suppression motion. On the record, the district court explained the consequences of such a procedure, and counsel obtained Antrim's waiver of her right to a jury trial, to testify at trial, and to cross-examine witnesses against her. But Antrim was not advised of or asked to waive her right to compel favorable witnesses to testify for the defense. The district court found her guilty as charged and imposed a sentence. This appeal followed, in which Antrim asserts (1) that the conviction must be reversed due to inadequate waiver of her trial rights and (2) that the district court erred by denying the motion to suppress.
Does Antrim's failure to personally waive, in writing or orally on the record, the right to require favorable witnesses to testify for the defense require reversal of her conviction following a Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4 proceeding?
The parties and the district court referred to the trial in this matter as a Lothenbach proceeding, but Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, effective April 1, 2007, implements and supersedes the procedure authorized by State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854 (Minn.1980). Minn. R.Crim. P. 26 cmt. We therefore analyze this case under the requirements of Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4. "The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review." Ford v. State, 690 N.W.2d 706, 712 (Minn. 2005).
Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, provides that in order to proceed with a stipulated-facts trial that preserves the right to appeal a pretrial ruling:
The defendant and the prosecuting attorney shall acknowledge that the pretrial issue is dispositive, or that a trial will otherwise be unnecessary if the defendant prevails on appeal. The defendant, after an opportunity to consult with counsel, shall waive the right to a jury trial under Rule 26.01, subdivision 1(2)(a), and shall also waive the rights specified in Rule 26.01, subdivision 3. The defendant shall stipulate to the prosecution's evidence in a trial to the court, and acknowledge that the court will consider the prosecution's evidence and may find the defendant guilty based on that evidence. The defendant shall also acknowledge that appellate review will be of the pretrial issue, but not of the defendant's guilt, or of other issues that could arise at a contested trial. The defendant and the prosecuting attorney must make the foregoing acknowledgements personally, in writing or orally on the record.
Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4 (emphasis added). Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3, requires that "the defendant shall acknowledge and waive the rights to testify at trial, to have the prosecution witnesses testify in open court in the defendant's presence, to question those prosecution witnesses, and to require any favorable witnesses to testify for the defense in court." Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3 (emphasis added).
In State v. Knoll, this court held that strict compliance with the waiver requirements of Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3, is a prerequisite to proceeding with a trial on stipulated facts to preserve a pretrial issue under Lothenbach. 739 N.W.2d 919, 921-22 (Minn.App.2007) (). The state argues that this case is distinguishable from Knoll because here only the waiver of the right to compel witnesses to testify for the defense was omitted from the record.1 But Knoll requires strict compliance with Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3, and cannot be construed to hold that making a record of only some of the required waivers will suffice. 739 N.W.2d at 921-22.
The state argues that it should be presumed that Antrim was advised by counsel of the right to call witnesses or that, due to prior experience in the criminal justice system, Antrim should be presumed to have known about the right to call witnesses for the defense. In State v. Ehmke, we rejected a similar argument, citing Knoll for the holding that a defendant must personally and explicitly waive the fundamental rights set out in Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3. 752 N.W.2d 117, 123 (Minn.App.2008) (). Neither the language of Knoll, nor the language of Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, permits a presumption to satisfy the unambiguous requirement of personal, on-the-record waiver of the rights specified in the rules.
The state also argues that the right of the defense to call witnesses is not a fundamental right and therefore failure to make a record of the waiver of this right does not require reversal. The state cites State v. Halseth, 653 N.W.2d 782, 785, 787 (Minn.App.2002) as support for this proposition. But the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Craig
...element of the charged offense constitutes structural error. Fluker, 781 N.W.2d at 401. Appellant relies on State v. Antrim, 764 N.W.2d 67, 70 (Minn.App.2009), to support his argument that the district court's failure to elicit a valid waiver requires automatic reversal. However, this case ......
-
State v. Hansen, A11-2260
...trial, or where the defendant stipulates to the prosecution's case to obtain review of a pretrial ruling.2 See State v. Antrim, 764 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Minn. App. 2009); State v. Knoll, 739 N.W.2d 919, 921-22 (Minn. App. 2007); State v. Halseth, 653 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Minn. App. 2002); State v. Tl......
-
State v. Tanner, No. A08-1705 (Minn. App. 10/13/2009)
...4. We decline to do so for the reasons that follow. Subdivision 4 of rule 26.01 is a relatively recent addition to the rules. See Antrim, 764 N.W.2d at 69 (noting that rule 26.01, subdivision 4, became effective on April 1, 2007). Subdivision 2, on the other hand, has been in effect since 1......
-
State v. Pierce
...a stipulated-evidence proceeding under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4—formerly known as a Lothenbach proceeding, see State v. Antrim, 764 N.W.2d 67, 69 (Minn. App. 2009)—a defendant must "waive a jury trial on the issue of guilt . . . personally, in writing or on the record in open court,......