STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KIRK J. PUGH (15-02-0127, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2495-17

Surveillance video at an Edison gas station showed a man holding a knife, grabbing the attendant, searching his pockets, and fleeing; license-plate information led to Pugh's arrest.
A grand jury indicted Pugh on robbery, aggravated assault, weapons offenses, unlawful possession, and obstruction; one count was later dismissed at trial.
Pugh sought to proceed pro se; the trial court conducted an extended colloquy that probed his knowledge of statutory elements, rules of evidence, and court rules, and denied the request, finding he lacked the understanding needed to represent himself.
At trial the jury convicted Pugh of third-degree theft; the court sentenced him to eight years with four years of parole ineligibility.
The Appellate Division initially affirmed the denial of the pro se request, but the New Jersey Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. Outland, requiring reassessment of whether the court properly informed (rather than quizzed) Pugh about the risks of self-representation.
On remand the Appellate Division concluded the trial court impermissibly tested Pugh's technical legal knowledge, found his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent under Faretta/Crisafi/Reddish as clarified by Outland, reversed the denial, and ordered a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied Pugh's request to proceed pro se	The court reasonably found Pugh lacked sufficient understanding of law, rules, and procedure to waive counsel	Pugh had sufficient appreciation of the risks, intended to rely on standby counsel, and would not testify; his waiver was knowing and intelligent	Reversed; court erred in denying pro se request — Pugh waived counsel knowingly under Faretta/Crisafi/Reddish as clarified by Outland
Whether the court's colloquy was an appropriate inquiry into waiver	The colloquy demonstrated substantive deficiencies justifying denial	The court improperly "quizzed" Pugh on technical legal matters instead of informing him of the nature/consequences of waiver	The court impermissibly tested technical legal knowledge; Outland requires courts to inform defendants of risks and consequences rather than assess lawyering competence
Remedy for erroneous denial of pro se request	If denial was within discretion, no new trial needed	Erroneous denial of Faretta rights requires reversal	New trial ordered to cure the Faretta error

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (recognizes constitutional right to self-representation and requires waiver be knowing and intelligent)
State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499 (N.J. 1992) (New Jersey standards for ensuring a defendant's Faretta waiver is informed)
State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553 (N.J. 2004) (further guidance on court colloquies and evaluating defendants' waivers of counsel)
State v. Outland, 245 N.J. 494 (N.J. 2021) (trial courts must inform defendants of the nature and consequences of self-representation and not merely test technical legal knowledge)
State v. King, 210 N.J. 2 (N.J. 2012) (a court's concern about a defendant's ability cannot override the defendant's decision to represent himself)
State v. Pugh, 246 N.J. 142 (N.J. 2021) (Supreme Court remand directing Appellate Division to reconsider Pugh in light of Outland)