Kostyshyn v. State
2012 Del. LEXIS 469
| Del. | 2012Background
- Kostyshyn was convicted of three offenses following a six‑day trial after proceeding pro se.
- The Superior Court found Kostyshyn forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to counsel due to abusive conduct toward appointed counsel.
- Two different attorneys were withdrawn due to Kostyshyn’s behavior, prompting appointment of a substitute who was also withdrawn for similar reasons.
- Kostyshyn challenged the forfeiture ruling, the absence of sua sponte a competency hearing, and a jury instruction that allegedly commented on facts.
- During trial, the court provided written jury instructions and later answered a juror’s written question about the definition of intent.
- The Delaware Superior Court affirmed the convictions, rejecting all three appellate challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Kostyshyn forfeit the right to counsel? | Kostyshyn contends forfeiture was improper given his conduct; argues not preserved as to indigence. | State/ Kostyshyn asserts egregious behavior warrants forfeiture under Bultron and Thomas. | Yes, forfeiture affirmed. |
| Was there a need for a sua sponte competency hearing? | Kostyshyn claims indicia of incompetence required a hearing. | State argues no clear error given lack of compelling indicia of incompetence. | No clear error; no sua sponte competency hearing required. |
| Did the trial court impermissibly comment on facts in the jury instruction? | Instruction was a misstatement that swayed verdicts. | Supplemental instruction clarified a juror question without determining a fact; contextualized instruction. | No impermissible comment; proper contextual amplification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bultron v. State, 897 A.2d 758 (Del. 2006) (forfeiture based on abusive conduct toward counsel)
- U.S. v. Thomas, 357 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 2004) (egregious conduct can forfeit right to counsel)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (due process and right to counsel context)
- Herring v. State, 805 A.2d 872 (Del. 2002) (supplemental instruction not impermissible when read in context)
- Taylor v. Horn, 504 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2007) (competence and need for hearing when indicia arise)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (standard for competence to stand trial)
- Jermyn v. Horn, 266 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2001) (factors in competency assessment and related discussions)