Background
Kyle Richard Cronin fired a rifle at the victim from close range, striking the victim in the ear and injuring his face. A jury convicted Cronin of assault with intent to commit murder, felon in possession of a firearm, felony-firearm, and transporting or possessing a loaded firearm in or upon a vehicle.
Cronin had elected to represent himself at his preliminary examination, and the trial court reaffirmed that choice at subsequent hearings. On the morning of trial, however, the court began jury selection without first reaffirming his waiver of counsel. Before the jury was sworn and impaneled, the court confirmed that Cronin understood his right to counsel, the applicable penalties, and the risks of self-representation, and that he still wished to proceed without counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s failure to reaffirm Cronin’s waiver before voir dire did not deprive him of his constitutional right to counsel. Cronin conceded that his initial waiver was valid, and the trial court confirmed during the trial that he continued to want to represent himself.
The court explained that Michigan Court Rule 6.005(E) requires a court to confirm a defendant’s waiver of counsel at each subsequent proceeding, but compliance with that rule is not itself a constitutional requirement. Neither the rule nor cited precedent required the reaffirmation to occur specifically before jury selection, and Cronin offered no supporting authority for such a requirement. The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v. King did not control because it concerned the validity of an initial waiver, not reaffirmation under Rule 6.005(E).
Key Takeaways
- A valid waiver of counsel must be reaffirmed at subsequent proceedings under Michigan Court Rule 6.005(E).
- Rule 6.005(E)’s reaffirmation requirement is not itself a constitutional mandate.
- A reaffirmation after voir dire but before the jury is sworn does not invalidate an otherwise proper waiver absent authority requiring reaffirmation before jury selection.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the constitutional standards governing an initial waiver of counsel from Michigan’s procedural requirement that the waiver be reaffirmed later. It also rejects the argument that a delayed reaffirmation automatically leaves a self-represented defendant without counsel during a critical stage.
For trial courts, the opinion underscores the importance of confirming a defendant’s continuing choice to proceed without counsel at every proceeding, while indicating that the precise timing of that confirmation will not necessarily create constitutional error.