The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the rights of an Albert Lea man convicted of possessing burglary tools were violated, but upheld his conviction on the charge.

Michael Allen Haukoos, 40, appealed to the Court of Appeals after he was convicted in March 2017 of possessing burglary or theft tools. He was placed on probation for up to three years.

Haukoos argued the court should reverse his conviction and he should have a new trial because Freeborn County Attorney David Walker allegedly committed prejudicial misconduct by eliciting evidence of Haukoos’ post-arrest, post-Miranda silence three times during his trial. Haukoos claimed the state violated case law set by Doyle v. Ohio, a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding 14th Amendment due process rights.

Haukoos also said his rights were violated when Walker argued in his closing argument that Haukoos would not answer the deputy’s questions. 

In a ruling authored by Court of Appeals Judge Denise Reilley, the court found Walker’s cross-examination of Haukoos was improper when he referenced Haukoos’ post-arrest, post-Miranda silence when he asked Haukoos at trial about his communication skills and whether he knew how to speak to law enforcement officers, as well as when he referenced Haukoos’ post-Miranda silence during the state’s closing argument.

Despite the findings, the court found that Haukoos’ “substantial rights were not affected in this case.”

“First, the evidence is overwhelming,” Reilley said in the 14-page ruling. “Haukoos and his fiancee were observed casing the Indian Hills neighborhood in a vehicle. Law enforcement discovered Haukoos under the deck with a black ski mask, a flashlight with spare batteries, and a bag containing a pry bar, pliers and a screwdriver.

At trial, Haukoos said he was looking for a missing dog during the incident.

“He had duct tape covering the treads of his shoes. None of the state’s witnesses observed any signs of a missing dog. The defense’s explanation at trial as to why Haukoos ended up under the deck with a bag of tools, a black ski mask and with duct tape on his shoes is far-fetched and fanciful.”

The court found Walker’s improper reference to Haukoos’s silence was “not pervasive.”

“The prosecutor’s mention of Haukoos’ silence in his closing argument is one small point within a larger argument about the many circumstances demonstrating Haukoos’ intent to use the tools to commit burglary,” Reilley said.

The court found Haukoos had the chance to request an instruction that the jury disregard the statements but did not do so.

“This factor also weighs in the state’s favor,” Reilley said.

“Balancing these factors demonstrates the state met its burden in showing that there is not a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the prosecutor’s improper use of Haukoos’ silence would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict. Because the state met its burden on the third plain-error prong, Haukoos’ substantial rights were not affected by the plan error and so we affirm his conviction and sentence.”

The Court of Appeals found Walker did not violate the rules outlined in the Doyle case.

On Tuesday, Walker expressed disapproval of the court’s findings.

“It’s a very arcane issue, and I think they missed the point,” he said. “That case was not about this guy’s silence. He talked to the police and he testified at trial, so it was not about attempting to draw an inference from the fact that he didn’t talk to the police, because he did talk to the police.”