Background
Police arrested Alexander James Haupt on a misdemeanor stalking charge involving 17-year-old AM and obtained a warrant to search his cell phone for evidence of stalking. After discovering naked photographs of AM, police obtained a second warrant and found sexual images, communications indicating that Haupt had sold the images, 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 made the attorney advisory counsel and ordered Haupt to represent himself without confirming that Haupt knowingly and intelligently waived his continuing right to counsel. Haupt represented himself at a July 2, 2019 hearing on his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the first search of his phone. Counsel was reappointed on the scheduled first day of trial, and Haupt was later convicted on all charges. The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed, reasoning on remand that Haupt had not lacked counsel during a critical stage.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that Haupt neither validly waived his right to counsel after his appointed attorney sought to withdraw nor forfeited that right through his conduct. Haupt did not request self-representation at that point, and the trial court failed to provide the required advice or determine that any waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Assuming without deciding that Michigan recognizes forfeiture of counsel by conduct, the Court concluded that Haupt’s behavior did not amount to the purposeful, defiant obstruction necessary to support forfeiture.
The Court further held that the July 2 suppression hearing was a critical stage under the circumstances. Haupt was forced to litigate without counsel whether evidence directly bearing on his guilt could be admitted, and the later reappointment of counsel did not cure the deprivation. Counsel’s trial motion sought suppression of different evidence on different grounds, and counsel lacked a meaningful opportunity to prepare while the original evidentiary issue remained open. Because complete denial of counsel at a critical stage is structural error, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals, vacated Haupt’s convictions and sentences, and remanded for a new trial.
Key Takeaways
- A court may not impose self-representation after counsel withdraws without obtaining a valid waiver of the defendant’s continuing right to counsel.
- On these facts, the suppression hearing was a critical stage because it determined the admissibility of cell-phone evidence directly tied to guilt, and the lost opportunity could not later be fully recovered.
- Deprivation of counsel at a critical stage is structural error requiring automatic reversal; advisory counsel does not cure an invalid waiver.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that trial courts must strictly protect the right to counsel when representation changes during pretrial proceedings. A defendant’s conflict with counsel, delay, or difficult behavior does not by itself establish either a valid waiver or forfeiture of counsel.
The ruling is fact-specific and does not declare every suppression hearing a critical stage. It directs courts to examine the consequences of proceeding without counsel and whether a later opportunity genuinely restores what the defendant lost.