State v. Clark
738 N.W.2d 316, 2007 WL 2671264, 2007 Minn. LEXIS 550 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's communication with a represented defendant without defense counsel's consent violates Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2; however, suppression of the defendant's statements is only warranted if the government's conduct was so egregious as to compromise the fair administration of justice.
Facts:
- Courtney Bernard Clark was invited to stay at Rodney Foster's apartment, where Foster lived with his girlfriend, B.B.
- Clark observed Foster's drug-dealing activities in the apartment and used drugs with Foster and B.B.
- On July 16, 2005, after Foster refused to give him heroin, Clark became angry and produced a gun.
- Clark bound and gagged Foster and B.B., then proceeded to rob them of drugs and money.
- Sometime after the robbery, Clark raped B.B. in the bedroom and attempted to clean her genital area with a washcloth.
- Clark then told B.B. that Foster was dead and attempted to suffocate B.B. by placing a plastic bag over her head, but she managed to tear it off.
- After trying and failing to dispose of Foster's body, Clark forced B.B. to leave the apartment building with him.
- As they were leaving, a neighbor intervened, allowing B.B. to escape back into the building where an occupant called 911.
- Foster's body was later discovered partially buried, and the cause of death was determined to be asphyxia.
Procedural Posture:
- Courtney Bernard Clark was indicted in Ramsey County district court on eight counts related to murder and attempted murder.
- Before trial, Clark's defense counsel filed a motion to suppress statements Clark made to police during three interviews, arguing his Miranda waiver was involuntary due to heroin withdrawal and that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. The trial court denied the motion.
- The state filed a motion to admit Clark's 1994 conviction for attempted criminal sexual conduct for substantive purposes. The trial court granted this motion.
- A jury found Clark guilty on all counts.
- The trial court convicted Clark and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
- Clark filed a direct appeal of his conviction to the Supreme Court of Minnesota, arguing the trial court erred in admitting his statements and his prior conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's failure to obtain explicit consent from defense counsel before police interview a represented defendant, in violation of Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, require suppression of the defendant's statements?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Paul H., Justice.
No, a violation of Rule 4.2 does not automatically require suppression of a defendant's statements; suppression is only warranted where the state's conduct is so egregious that it compromises the fair administration of justice. The court clarified that Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 requires a prosecutor to obtain explicit consent from a defendant's lawyer before any communication, not merely provide notice and an opportunity to be present. Although the prosecutor in this case, Balck, violated the rule by authorizing the final police interview with Clark without defense counsel's consent, the conduct was not sufficiently egregious to warrant suppression. The court reasoned that Balck's actions could be viewed as a lapse in professional judgment under frustrating circumstances, given Clark's repeated requests to speak with police against his lawyers' advice and the prosecutor's prior, albeit unsuccessful, attempts to contact defense counsel. Furthermore, the court held that Clark's Miranda waiver was voluntary despite his heroin withdrawal and his statements were not coerced. The admission of a prior conviction was deemed an abuse of discretion but constituted harmless error.
Dissenting - Hanson, Justice
Yes, the statements should have been suppressed because the violation of Rule 4.2 was sufficiently egregious. The police implemented a clear strategy from the first interview to undermine Clark's relationship with his counsel by repeatedly urging him to bypass his lawyer and contact them directly. The prosecutor, Balck, actively assisted this strategy and provided a sham notice for the final interview—a voicemail left only 20 minutes before it began. This conduct was designed to prevent counsel from being present and was more egregious than prior cases where evidence was suppressed. The dissent argues these actions also violated Clark’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
Dissenting - Page, Justice
Yes, the violation of Rule 4.2 warrants suppression. The rule's language is plain, clear, and unambiguous in requiring consent, and it was not reasonable for the prosecutor to believe otherwise. Even if the rule only required notice and an opportunity to be present, the state failed to meet that lower standard for the August 3 interview. The dissent argues that a prosecutor's frustration does not mitigate an ethical violation; rather, the failure to seek a court order to resolve the communication issue aggravates the misconduct.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 requires a prosecutor to obtain explicit consent from defense counsel, not just provide notice, before communicating with a represented defendant. However, the court simultaneously sets a high bar for suppression as a remedy, holding that only 'egregious' prosecutorial misconduct will justify excluding a defendant's statement. This decision creates a case-by-case standard that examines the prosecutor's intent and the defendant's own actions, potentially weakening the rule's enforcement by signaling that a violation without evidence of bad faith or a flagrant disregard for a defendant's rights may not result in the exclusion of evidence.
