State v. Krause
817 N.W.2d 136
Minn.2012Background
- Krause charged by amended complaint with four counts including illegal firearm possession and four fourth-degree controlled substance offenses; public defender appointed.
- District court granted Chief Public Defender’s motion to discharge counsel and found Krause forfeited right to counsel due to alleged misconduct outside court.
- Krause appeared pro se at trial; jury convicted on all counts and imposed sentences on two counts.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Minnesota Supreme Court remands for an evidentiary hearing with proper due process protections.
- Court holds that procedural due process was denied at the forfeiture hearing and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was “extremely serious misconduct.”
- Court discusses applicable Mathews v. Eldridge balancing factors and potential remedies (remand for hearing versus retrial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Krause was denied procedural due process in the forfeiture hearing | Krause alleges outside-the-court misconduct and absence of counsel violated due process | State contends forfeiture supported by affidavits and conduct within standard procedures | Yes; due process denied; remanded for evidentiary hearing with counsel and protections. |
| Appropriate remedy for due process violation | Convictions should be reversed with a new trial if due process violated | Remand for an evidentiary hearing is appropriate to determine validity of forfeiture | Remand for full evidentiary hearing with proper protections; not automatic reversal. |
| What conduct constitutes “extremely serious misconduct” justifying forfeiture | Threats to harm an attorney or family may be extremely serious | Need definitive findings; not all threats justify forfeiture | Credible threats may constitute extremely serious misconduct; remedy depends on post-hearing findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lehman, 749 N.W.2d 76 (Minn.App.2008) (forfeiture based on in-court misconduct; evidentiary hearing used when outside-the-court conduct is alleged)
- State v. Jones, 772 N.W.2d 496 (Minn.2009) (forfeiture by conduct and timing considerations in dilatory tactics)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (establishes the Mathews balancing test for due process protections)
- State v. Licari, 659 N.W.2d 243 (Minn.2003) (remand was appropriate to determine admissibility of evidence rather than automatic retrial)
- Commonwealth v. Means, 454 Mass. 81, 907 N.E.2d 646 (Mass. 2009) (protective procedural safeguards in forfeiture hearings; totality of circumstances)