The court first reviewed his case on direct appeal, and affirmed Voorhees's conviction on May 13, 1999. See State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1999) (" Voorhees I"). After losing this direct appeal, Voorhees sought post-conviction relief in the trial court, which was denied. The Minnesota Supreme Court later affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. See Voorhees v. State, 627 N.W.2d 642 (Minn.
In 1998, a St. Louis County jury found appellant Brad Alan Voorhees guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and he was sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison. We affirmed Voorhees' conviction in State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1999). Voorhees then filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief alleging violations of due process at trial and on appeal, errors in jury instructions, newly-discovered evidence, misconduct on the part of the prosecutor, violation of his right to effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and insufficient evidence of premeditation.
"[T]he defendant's burden of making a prima facie showing that would entitle him to a jury instruction and the defendant's burden of proving to the trier of fact by a preponderance of the evidence each element of the defense proffered are two separate inquiries." State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241, 250 n.2 (Minn. 1999). In determining whether the defendant has made the required prima facie showing so as to be entitled to an instruction on an affirmative defense, we, like the trial court, must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.
At an October 22, 1999 hearing, a representative of the public defender's office stated that he could not appoint a substitute attorney because the law required the district court to first make a specific finding of exceptional circumstances warranting a substitute attorney. State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241, 255 (Minn. 1999). The court then took statements from Gillam and his court-appointed attorney.
A district court abuses its discretion by instructing a jury on the defense of involuntary intoxication where the defendant has failed to establish a prima facie showing entitling him to that instruction. State v. Voorhees , 596 N.W.2d 241, 251 (Minn. 1999). In determining whether the defendant has made the required showing, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.
Schneider v. State, 725 N.W.2d 516, 521 (Minn. 2007). Matters involving trial strategy, including what evidence to present, which witnesses to call, and what defenses to raise at trial, are not reviewable for competency. State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241, 255 (Minn. 1999). And "appellate counsel is not required to raise claims on direct appeal that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail."
A defendant's constitutional right to due process includes the right to present a complete defense. State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241, 249 (Minn. 1999); accord U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7. But "the right of a criminal defendant to present a defense is not absolute. The defendant's right to present witnesses is subject to the rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure fairness and reliability in the determination of guilt.
In addition, "personal tension" does not entitle a defendant to new counsel. State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241, 255 (Minn. 1999). Shepersky contends that there was a complete breakdown in his relationship with Coz and that Coz coerced him into pleading guilty.
Nor does personal tension in the attorney-client relationship amount to an exceptional circumstance that would entitle a defendant to substitute counsel. State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241, 255 (Minn. 1999).Id.
State v. Bobo, 770 N.W.2d 129, 138 (Minn.2009); State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241, 255 (Minn.1999). The determination of which defenses to raise represents an attorney's trial strategy.