State v. Dalbec
2011 Minn. LEXIS 447
| Minn. | 2011Background
- Dalbec charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(d); tried by bench trial.
- Parties agreed to submit written closing arguments; defense failed to submit by deadline.
- Trial court found Dalbec guilty after the silence on closing argument.
- Court of Appeals reversed, finding structural error due to lack of closing argument.
- Supreme Court granted State's review and held no structural error; remanded for remaining claims.
- Court discusses distinctions between structural and trial errors and addresses potential ineffective-assistance/ripe-postconviction issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to submit closing argument is structural error | Dalbec (state) argues it is structural error causing automatic reversal | Dalbec argues the error is structural; automatic reversal warranted | No structural error; not automatic reversal |
| Whether adjudication without closing argument was erroneous | Dalbec asserts prejudice from adjudication without closing argument | State contends no error or only trial-error level prejudice | Not erroneous; not structural error |
| Application of Cronic and Cone to closing-argument waiver | Waiver-like error falls under Cronic's narrow exceptions | Cone controls; waiver errors not structural | Cone controls; waiver-of-closing-argument error is not structural |
| Ripeness of ineffective-assistance claims under Knaffla | Such claims should be addressed on postconviction petition | Claims presently not ripe on direct appeal | Not ripe; addressed by postconviction proceedings if pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (distinguishes structural from trial error; harmlessness not applicable to structural errors)
- Brown v. State, 732 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. 2007) (Minnesota structural error framework)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (automatic reversal for certain structural errors; prejudice not required)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (limits on categorizing structural errors)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (narrow exception to Strickland for certain ineffective-assistance claims)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (waiver of closing argument treated as trial error, not structural)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (three categories of cases where prejudice presumed in absence of counsel; narrow exception to Strickland)
- Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (distinguishes cases where court denies counsel from those with mere errors by counsel; not applicable here)
- State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 2001) (ripe issue analysis for ineffective-assistance claims)