2009-M-120             Clarence Allen Holt, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

MAJORITY:  A Dakota County jury found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and second-degree murder while committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of assault in the second degree, for the May 13, 1997, shooting death of Frederick Pitts.  The district court sentenced Holt to life in prison for first-degree premeditated murder. 

Nine years later, Holt filed a petition for post-conviction relief in Dakota County District Court but did not request an evidentiary hearing.  Holt appeals the district court’s denial of his petition.  The following seven issues are raised: (1) whether Holt’s appeal is barred by his delay in seeking post-conviction relief; (2) whether the district court erred by not removing a juror who had been the victim of a crime during the trial and who could not say with certainty that the crime was unrelated to Holt’s case; (3) whether Holt’s exclusion from an in-chambers Schwartz hearing violated his constitutional right to self-representation; (4) whether Holt’s exclusion from an in-chambers Schwartz hearing violated his constitutional right to be present at critical stages of the proceeding; (5) whether the district court erred by admitting evidence of Holt’s witness tampering and failing to instruct the jury on the specific purpose of “consciousness of guilt” evidence; (6) whether the district court erred   by admitting an alleged accomplice’s statements as substantive evidence; and (7) whether the district court erred by refusing to give an accomplice liability instruction.  We affirm the conviction.

DISSENT:  Justices Page and Paul Anderson opined:  “I respectfully dissent.  The United States Supreme Court recognized a defendant’s constitutional right to self-representation in Faretta v. California.  And we have held that a defendant’s right to counsel includes “a constitutional right to conduct his defense in person without assistance of counsel.”  State v. Huber.  A criminal defendant also has a constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of a trial.  U.S. v. Gagno.  While we said in State v. Richards that a “defendant’s right to be present at all stages of the trial is not so absolute as to require jeopardizing the safety of those present in the courtroom,” a trial court may use only those procedures reasonably necessary to maintain order and security.  Less restrictive available alternatives must also be considered, especially when a defendant’s rights are at stake.

Here, the trial court conditioned Holt’s right to self-representation on his exclusion from proceedings in chambers.  Coupled with the trial court’s decision to hold proceedings, including a Schwartz hearing, in chambers and its subsequent exclusion of Holt from those proceedings, the trial court effectively violated Holt’s constitutional right to represent himself and his right to be present at all critical stages of trial.  I would reverse Holt’s convictions and remand for a new trial.

               Meyer (Magnuson, Barry Anderson, Gildea, and Dietzen)

               Dissent:  Page and Paul Anderson

[MURDER]