This is a multi-installment article about a strange and ongoing Minnesota DWI case. The first part addressed the facts of the case and the legal process up through the jury trial. This part discusses the Minnesota Court Of Appeal's ruling, which was issued on February 2, 2010.
After being stopped and tased by police officers, Christpoher Homstad was accused of two counts of DWI, attempted assault, obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct. At trial, one of his witnesses disobeyed a court order and was prevented from testifying. Homstad was convicted on all five counts and appealed. For a more detailed treatment of the facts of the case, see the first article.
On appeal, Homstad claimed that:
- The stop was illegal;
- his pre-test right to speak with an attorney was violated;
- he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial.
The vehicle stop
In Minnesota, a vehicle can be stopped without a warrant if there is reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. A court looks at the "totality of the circumstances" to determine whether that suspicion existed.
The court quickly disposed of Homstad's complaint that he was stopped illegally because a stop can be based on a window tint violation. Under Minnesota law, a vehicle is illegally tinted if the tint allows less than 50 percent transmittance of light.
Many DUI defendants painstakingly believe that if the officer does not cite them for the reason for the stop (typically a traffic violation) that the violation does not support the stop. Under Minnesota DWI law, an officer doesn't have to cite for the underlying reason for the stop if the driver is then arrested for something more serious.
The right to talk with an attorney before a chemical test
Minnesota DWI law gives people arrested for DWI a limited right to speak with an attorney before taking a chemical test. You only get a reasonable amount of time because indefinite delay or conversation could result in alcohol being burned off, which amounts to evidence being lost. The law provides that counsel must be contacted within a reasonable amount of time.
Homstad didn't argue that the police interfered with his use of the phone. The court looked at the undisputed fact that Homstad didn't make any calls in denying his appeal. Homstad leaned heavily on a non-binding case where the defendant was told that he couldn't make a long-distance phone call. This case, said the Appeals Court, was different because Homstad never attempted to make a long distance call, and therefore was unable to establish whether long-distance was available.
Overall, Homstad's lack of effort to make any call whatsoever, torpedoed his appeal on this issue.
Ineffective assistance of Counsel
Homstad's last argument was that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. He claims that it was his attorney's fault that his witness was not told to wait outside the courtroom before testifying. Because the witness had been in the courtroom, the judge didn't let him testify for Homstad.
An attorney's performance is deemed reasonable if the attorney exhibits the skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would under the circumstances.
The court declined to say whether it thought that Homstad's lawyer was or was not ineffective, and passed on the issue all together because an appeal is not the appropriate place to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
What's next for Homstad?
The court will allow Homstad to file a petition for post-conviction relief to have the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel revisited. At this point, it appears to be his best argument and best hope for having the charges reversed.
