Hughes v. State, 2012 Minn. LEXIS 153

In 2006 Hughes was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for the death of Tammy Hughes and received life with parole eligibility plus restitution to the Crime Victims Reparations Board.
Hughes’s restitution order totaled $6,771.78 for funeral expenses, and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 2008.
In 2010 Hughes filed a postconviction petition raising 18 claims, prominently including restitution specificity and Confrontation Clause violations.
The postconviction court denied relief without a hearing, holding claims procedurally barred, and for the Confrontation Clause claim found no testimonial statements identified.
The Minnesota Supreme Court assumed the Giles issue was not procedurally barred and addressed the merits of the Confrontation Clause claim.
The court held restitution was properly supported and that the challenged statements were non-testimonial; the remaining claims were procedurally barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution specificity and validity	Hughes: funeral-expense restitution was not specific and not owed because he did not cause the death.	Hughes: restitution should be limited or invalid because of lack of specificity and responsibility.	Restitution upheld; evidence supported specificity and guilt.
Constitutional Confrontation Clause applicability	Giles-based forfeiture should apply because wife was unavailable to testify.	Forfeiture-by-wrongdoing should bar confrontation only if intent to prevent testimony is shown.	Statements were non-testimonial; no Confrontation Clause violation.
Procedural bar under Knaffla and § 590.01	Several claims should be reviewable despite direct-appeal history.	Claims are procedurally barred if not raised on direct appeal or known but not raised.	Most remaining claims barred; restitution and Confrontation issues resolved on merits.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay admission requires prior oath and cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (nontestimonial vs. testimonial statements depend on ongoing emergency)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing requires intent to prevent testimony)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (2011) (evaluate encounter for primary purpose of questioning in context of state action)
State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (claims raised on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in postconviction relief)
State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 1984) (need a factual basis in the record to support a restitution award)