Minnesota Supreme Court, 1983

Crouse v. State

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 24, 1983 · Amdahl

335 N.W.2d 236; 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1207 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

William P. Scott, Pipestone, for appellant., Hubert H. Humphrey III, Atty. Gen., Richard D. Hodsdon and Jerry S. Anderson, Sp. Asst., St. Paul, Pete Kasai, County Atty., Glencoe, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1988, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Lundin v. State (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
State v. Stephani (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a petition for post-conviction relief in the form of a new trial. The petition alleged that petitioner’s trial *237 attorney had a conflict of interest with petitioner and that that conflict led him to refuse to let petitioner testify in his own behalf. The issue in this appeal is not whether there are grounds to discipline petitioner’s trial attorney, that being a matter which can be decided in a separate disciplinary proceeding. Rather, the issue is whether the record compels the conclusion that there was a conflict of interest that actually affected the adequacy of the attorney’s representation of petitioner. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). The record on appeal fails to compel that conclusion. Petitioner’s related contention is that his trial counsel refused to let him testify and that he is therefore automatically entitled to a new trial. State v. Rosillo, 281 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. 1979). The evidence was conflicting on this and the postconviction court believed the testimony of petitioner’s trial counsel, not petitioner’s testimony. Thus, the record also fails to establish that petitioner is entitled to relief based on the latter contention.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.