State v. Krause
| Citation | 817 N.W.2d 136 |
| Decision Date | 25 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. A10–1091.,A10–1091. |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Arthur KRAUSE, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. After weighing the Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) factors, we hold that in a forfeiture-of-counsel evidentiary hearing, the defendant is entitled to due process protections, including adequate notice, the assistance of counsel, the ability to present evidence and to confront and cross-examine witnesses, an impartial decision maker, a decision on the record, and a full explanation for the decision. Because appellant was denied the right to counsel at his evidentiary hearing, his procedural due process rights were violated.
2. To avoid any conflicts of interest, if the defendant's alleged conduct involves a physical assault or threat of harm against the appointed public defender, a lawyer unaffiliated with defendant's counsel must be appointed to represent the defendant during the forfeiture-of-counsel evidentiary hearing.
3. Because we conclude that the district court denied appellant his due process rights, we do not decide whether the districtcourt erred in its ruling. Instead, we remand the matter to the district court for an evidentiary hearing with due process protections to determine whether appellant engaged in “extremely serious misconduct” warranting forfeiture of the right to counsel.
4. In order to guide the district court in its decision, we conclude that a credible threat of harm to an attorney or the attorney's family may constitute “extremely serious misconduct” warranting forfeiture of the right to counsel.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN; and David J. Hauser, Otter Tail County Attorney, Fergus Falls, MN, for respondent.
Renée Bergeron, Special Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, MN, for appellant.
Appellant Jeffrey Arthur Krause asks us to decide whether the district court (1) erred in ruling that he forfeited his right to appointed counsel and (2) denied him procedural due process at his forfeiture-of-counsel hearing. 1 Krause was charged by amended complaint in Otter Tail County District Court with three counts of fourth-degree controlled substance crime and one count of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person. A public defender was appointed to represent him. Prior to trial, the Chief Public Defender for the Seventh Judicial District made a motion to the district court seeking the discharge of the public defender and an order that Krause had forfeited his right to counsel by manipulating the court and making “threatening statements” to his lawyer. After an evidentiary hearing at which Krause was present but not represented by counsel, the court granted the Chief Public Defender's motion, holding that Krause had forfeited his right to counsel due to his “severe misconduct.” Krause subsequently appeared pro se at his jury trial. The jury found him guilty of all counts, and the court sentenced him on possession of a firearm by an ineligible person and one count of sale of a controlled substance. The court of appeals affirmed Krause's convictions. We hold that the district court denied Krause his procedural due process rights and remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing, at which Krause shall be entitled to due process protections, to determine whether Krause engaged in “extremely serious misconduct” warranting forfeiture of his right to counsel.
Krause was charged by amended complaint with the following offenses: (a) Count I: Illegal possession of a firearm (following conviction of crime of violence) in violation of Minn.Stat. § 624.713, subds. 1(2), 2(b) (2008); (b) Count II: Controlled substance crime in the fourth degree in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.024, subds. 1(1), 3(a) (2010); (c) Count III: Controlled substance crime in the fourth degree in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.024, subds. 1(1), 3(a); and (d) Count IV: Controlled substance crime in the fourth degree in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.024, subds. 1(1), 3(a) and Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (2008). The complaint alleged that Krause sold morphine tablets to a confidential informant on three occasions in June and July 2009 and that he possessed a firearm during one of the three sales.2
At Krause's first appearance on July 28, 2009, the district court reviewed the charges with Krause, set bail at $50,000, and approved Krause's request for appointed counsel. Assistant Public Defender David Phillipe was appointed to represent Krause and first appeared with him for a Rule 8 hearing. An omnibus hearing was held on August 28, 2009; Phillipe requested a speedy trial and a continuance of 2 to 3 weeks to conduct some necessary legal research.
During the pretrial hearing on October 16, 2009, Phillipe told the court that he met with Krause on Thursday or Friday of the previous week and that Krause had indicated that he was firing Phillipe.
The district court explained to Krause that, although the court was responsible for ordering the appointment of a public defender, the public defender's office, not the court, was responsible for the selection of the particular public defender to represent him. The court also warned Krause that the public defender's office might not appoint a different public defender to represent him. The court told Krause that it would not discharge Phillipe as Krause's counsel until replacement counsel was hired.
Krause then told the district court that he wanted to hire a private or “outside” attorney. Krause said he needed to talk with his parents about hiring a lawyer for him or selling his truck. When the district court asked Krause if he wanted to continue with his demand for a speedy trial and keep the October 27, 2009, trial date, or waive that right in order to have more time to hire another attorney, Krause responded, “Whatever you guys want.... that's fine.” Krause said he had difficulty making decisions because of the prescription pills and morphine he was taking.
The district court judge briefly recessed the hearing to permit Phillipe to discuss with Krause how his request to discharge Phillipe would affect his request for a speedy trial. When the hearing was reconvened, Phillipe reported that when he attempted to explain to Krause his right to waive his speedy trial demand, Krause started “arguing with [him] about other things.” Krause denied that he argued with Phillipe.
The district court judge announced that she was removing herself from the case because she had been the prosecutor in a prior case leading to one of Krause's terroristic-threats convictions. After Krause said he would not have time to hire another attorney by October 27, 2009, and agreed to have the trial reset, the court decided to reset the trial date.
At a hearing held on October 21, 2009, Krause reiterated his intention to discharge Phillipe and told the district court he was attempting to retain private counsel. The court reiterated the need to know quickly who would be representing Krause in light of Krause's demand for a speedy trial. Krause responded by telling the court that he needed to confer with his family about hiring private counsel. The court announced that it would reconvene the hearing at 9:00 a.m. on October 22, 2009, and expected Krause to tell the court at that time the name of the attorney who would be representing him.
Before adjourning the hearing, the district court provided Krause with a “waiver of counsel” form for him to review in the event he elected to represent himself and discussed with him the difficulties of self-representation and the advantages of counsel. The court also explained to Krause that standby counsel could be appointed for him in the event he elected to waive his right to counsel. The court found good cause to continue the matter until November 3, 2009, for trial.
At the beginning of the hearing on October 22, 2009, the district court asked Krause whether he had retained private counsel. Krause said that he had called an attorney the previous day and arranged to meet with the attorney, but the attorney did not appear for the meeting. Krause then said he had not been successful in hiring an attorney and would represent himself.
The district court asked Krause if he wished to proceed pro se. After some initial equivocation, Krause stated that he intended to represent himself. The court conducted a waiver colloquy, and Krause furnished the court with a signed “waiver of counsel” form. The court concluded that Krause had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and asserted his constitutional right to self-representation. The court also announced that it would appoint standby counsel for Krause. The court further found that good cause would exist to continue the matter despite Krause's speedy trial demand in the event that standby counsel could not be adequately prepared by the date set for trial. Phillipe was then discharged.
Krause appeared pro se with standby counsel, Christopher Cadem, but at the beginning of the hearing Krause told the district court that he was unprepared to represent himself and asked the court to continue the trial because he wished to hire private counsel. Krause said that his sister had spoken to proposed private counsel the previous evening. Krause also waived his speedy trial demand.
With Krause's consent, the district court recessed the hearing to contact the lawyer and confirm the representation. Following the recess, the court announced that the lawyer had sent a message to the court indicating that while he had spoken with Krause's family, no definite financial arrangements had been made. Although Krause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Williams
...in juror selection " ‘is the same under the Federal Constitution and the [Massachusetts] Declaration of Rights' "); State v. Krause, 817 N.W.2d 136, 144 (Minn.2012) (" ‘The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due proces[s] guaranteed under th......
-
Johnson v. Williams
...in juror selection “ ‘is the same under the Federal Constitution and the [Massachusetts] Declaration of Rights' ”); State v. Krause, 817 N.W.2d 136, 144 (Minn.2012) (“ ‘The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due proces[s] guaranteed under th......
-
State v. Little
...of whether he suffered prejudice from the district court's failure to obtain a valid jury-trial waiver from him. See State v. Krause, 817 N.W.2d 136, 147–48 (Minn.2012) (discussing cases in which we have remanded for an evidentiary hearing during a direct appeal). Accordingly, the court is ......
-
State v. Hill, A13–1803.
...N.W.2d 814, 836 (Minn.2012) (plurality opinion); accord U.S. Const.amend. XIV, § 1 ; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7 ; see also State v. Krause, 817 N.W.2d 136, 144 (Minn.2012) (noting that the protections of due process provided under the Minnesota Constitution are "identical" to those guaranteed......