People v Haupt
Key claim: The Michigan Supreme Court held that the defendant was deprived of counsel at a critical stage (including a suppression hearing) without a valid waiver or forfeiture-by-conduct, requiring automatic reversal of his convictions.
Abstract
Michigan Supreme Court opinion decided 2026-07-30. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas Noah P. Hood
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kimberly K. Muschong
PEOPLE v HAUPT
Docket No. 167315. Argued on application for leave to appeal March 10, 2026. Decided
July 30, 2026.
Defendant, Alexander J. Haupt, was arrested on a misdemeanor stalking charge in
September 2017 in relation to 17-year-old AM. The police obtained a warrant to search
defendant’s cell phone for evidence related to the stalking allegations, and, after finding naked
photos of AM, they obtained a second warrant to search the phone for evidence of child sexually
abusive material (CSAM). In that search, police found images of AM naked or performing sexual
acts, as well as text messages and e-mails indicating that defendant had sold the images to a third
party and an audio file in which defendant tried to coerce AM into withdrawing a pending criminal
complaint. Defendant was subsequently charged in the Clare Circuit Court with producing CSAM,
distributing CSAM, possessing CSAM, using a computer to commit a crime, and obstructing
justice.
Defendant had troubled relationships with both the attorney he had retained and the
attorney he was later appointed, and, as a result of their motions to withdraw, defendant either was
entirely without counsel or had only advisory counsel during some of the pretrial proceedings,
including a hearing on June 25, 2019, at which the court considered whether to allow the admission
of AM’s preliminary-examination testimony, and a hearing on July 2, 2019, at which the court
considered his motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the original search of his cell phone
and his motion to dismiss. The trial court, Roy G. Mienk, J., conducted the latter hearing without
advising defendant of his continuing right to the assistance of counsel. The trial court later held a
hearing on the prosecution’s motion to compel and strike defense witnesses and exhibits at which
neither defendant nor his advisory counsel was present, and the court later granted the motion. On
the day that trial was scheduled to begin, defendant stated on the record that he planned to stand
mute, alleging that the trial court had violated MCR 6.005 by failing to provide an attorney except
in an advisory capacity. The trial court responded by reappointing the attorney who had been
serving in an advisory capacity only and adjourning trial until the following day. After a two-day
trial, defendant was found guilty as charged.
Defendant appealed as of right, arguing that the trial court had deprived him of his Sixth
Amendment right to counsel by allowing his attorney to withdraw without appointing substitute
counsel. The Court of Appeals, MURRAY, C.J., and M. J. KELLY and O’BRIEN, JJ., affirmed in an
unpublished per curiam opinion, issued September 23, 2021 (Docket No. 351593) (Haupt I), holding that even though defendant had not validly waived his right to counsel and the trial court had not complied with People v Anderson, 398 Mich 361 (1976), and MCR 6.005(D) in allowing defendant to proceed in propria persona, defendant could not show entitlement to relief under the standard for plain-error review in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999). The panel also suggested that defendant might have forfeited his right to counsel through his own conduct. Defendant applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which held the case in abeyance for People v Posey, 512 Mich 317 (2023), People v Stewart, 512 Mich 472 (2023), and People v King, 512 Mich 1 (2023). 973 NW2d 147 (2022). After those cases were decided, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision in Haupt I to the extent it was inconsistent with King (regarding deprivation of trial counsel) and Posey (regarding review of within-the-guidelines sentences), remanded defendant’s case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of those decisions, and otherwise denied leave. 513 Mich 912 (2023) (Haupt II).
On remand, the same Court of Appeals panel again affirmed in an unpublished per curiam
opinion, issued April 25, 2024 (Docket No. 351593) (Haupt III), concluding that defendant had not been deprived of counsel during any critical stage of the proceedings. Defendant again applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which ordered oral argument on the application and directed the parties to address whether (1) defendant had validly waived his right to counsel following defense counsels’ motions to withdraw on October 23, 2018, and June 10, 2019; (2) defendant forfeited his right to counsel through his conduct and remarks as in People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98 (2014); and (3) the periods for which defendant was without counsel constituted critical stages of the proceedings. ___ Mich ___; 21 NW3d 587 (2025).
In an opinion by Justice BOLDEN, joined by Chief Justice CAVANAGH and Justices WELCH,
THOMAS, and HOOD, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, held:
Defendant was deprived of counsel at a critical stage of his criminal proceedings, and he
did not validly waive his right to counsel or forfeit his right to counsel through his conduct. Accordingly, reversal was required.
1. The Haupt I panel correctly held that the trial court failed to substantially comply with
the requirements of Anderson and MCR 6.005(D). Defendant did not make a request for self- representation, let alone an unequivocal request, and because the trial court failed to advise defendant of the charges, the risk of self-representation, and the opportunity to consult with another attorney, any alleged waiver was not knowing and intelligent. The trial court also did not consider whether the self-representation would disrupt the court. Accordingly, automatic reversal is appropriate if defendant was unrepresented at any critical stage.
2. Assuming without deciding that the forfeiture-by-conduct doctrine exists in Michigan,
defendant did not forfeit his right to counsel by conduct. At no point did defendant refuse to remain in the courtroom, refuse to participate in the proceedings, insist that the court could not proceed at all, or engage in the kind of purposeful and defiant obstruction and disruption of the court’s proceedings that were present in People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98 (2014). 3. The Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the July 2, 2019 hearing on the motion to suppress evidence did not constitute a critical stage of the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court has not adopted a formal test for determining what constitutes a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, and no binding authorities have established whether suppression hearings are critical stages for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to
Why this matters
The Michigan Supreme Court held that the defendant was deprived of counsel at a critical stage (including a suppression hearing) without a valid waiver or forfeiture-by-conduct, requiring automatic reversal of his convictions.