Background
Police arrested Alexander James Haupt on a misdemeanor stalking charge involving 17-year-old AM and obtained a warrant to search his cellphone for evidence related to the alleged stalking. After officers found naked photographs of AM, they obtained a second warrant. The searches uncovered sexual images of AM, communications indicating that Haupt had sold the images to a third party, and an audio recording in which he attempted to coerce AM into withdrawing a criminal complaint. Haupt was charged with producing, distributing, and possessing child sexually abusive material, using a computer to commit a crime, and obstructing justice.
After Haupt’s appointed attorney sought to withdraw, the trial court relegated the attorney to an advisory role and ordered Haupt to represent himself without obtaining a new waiver of counsel. Acting without counsel, Haupt litigated a July 2, 2019 motion to suppress data and photographs obtained during the first cellphone search. The court denied the motion, later restored counsel immediately before trial, and a jury convicted Haupt on all charges. The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed, concluding that none of the uncounseled pretrial proceedings was a critical stage requiring automatic reversal.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that Haupt did not validly waive his right to counsel after his appointed attorney withdrew. Haupt never unequivocally requested self-representation, and the trial court failed to advise him of the charges, the risks of proceeding without counsel, and his opportunity to consult another attorney as required by People v. Anderson and MCR 6.005(D). The court also assumed without deciding that Michigan recognizes forfeiture of counsel by conduct, but held that Haupt’s behavior did not approach the purposeful, defiant, and exceptionally egregious obstruction required for forfeiture.
The court further held that the July 2 suppression hearing was a critical stage under the circumstances. The cellphone evidence bore directly on Haupt’s guilt, and he had to litigate its admissibility alone against the prosecution. Reappointing counsel on the morning of trial did not cure the violation because counsel challenged different evidence on different grounds and had no meaningful opportunity to prepare while the original suppression questions remained open. The deprivation of counsel was therefore structural error requiring automatic reversal. The court reversed the Court of Appeals, vacated Haupt’s convictions and sentences, and remanded for a new trial.
Key Takeaways
- A prior waiver of counsel does not remain operative after a defendant reinvokes the right and resumes representation by counsel.
- Assuming forfeiture of counsel by conduct is available in Michigan, conflict with attorneys and case delays alone do not satisfy the doctrine’s exceptionally demanding standard.
- A suppression hearing may be a critical stage when it determines the admissibility of evidence central to guilt and the defendant cannot later recover the opportunity lost while unrepresented.
Why It Matters
The decision requires Michigan trial courts to obtain a valid, on-the-record waiver before making a represented defendant proceed without counsel after an attorney withdraws. Standby or advisory counsel does not substitute for a valid waiver and does not make an uncounseled critical-stage violation harmless.
The ruling does not establish that every suppression hearing is categorically a critical stage. Its holding rests on the importance of the cellphone evidence, Haupt’s complete lack of representation while challenging that evidence, and the inability of subsequently reappointed counsel to cure the lost opportunity.