Please visit my author page at amazon.com
State of Minnesota v. Justin Joseph Huisman. MN effective assistance of counsel
The defendant was convicted in Steele County after a bench trial of criminal sexual conduct. The defendant was 26 years old and the victims were 12 and 13 years old. After trial, the parties submitted written closing arguments. In his argument, the defendant's attorney conceded the age of the victims, the age of the defendant, and the fact that the defendant was more than 36 months older than the victims. The defendant appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which reversed on the grounds that the defendant had been denied the effective assistance of counsel, since his attorney had conceded these elements of the offense. The State appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction. The high court first noted that in order to prevail, the defendant must show that the attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.
The court clarified earlier precedents, in which it had stated that a confession of guilt constituted ineffective assistance. In this case, there was a mere concession of some of the elements of the offense, not an outright concession of guilt. The court noted that this could have been an appropriate tactical decision, which allowed the focus to shift to issues that were actually in dispute.
The court did note that there might be cases in which conceding some elements amounts to ineffective assistance. But in this case, the focus had been on other issues, and there was no real dispute as to age.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction.
No. A18-1710 (Minn. June 10, 2020).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2020, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com