State v. Gale
240 Or. App. 305
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Indictment in Washington County July 27, 2007 charging unlawful manufacture, delivery, and possession of marijuana, plus child neglect and endangering the welfare of a minor.
- Defendant pleaded not guilty September 12, 2007; pretrial conference September 24, 2007 setting trial for November 14, 2007.
- Defendant moved for continuance October–November 2007; trial date repeatedly rescheduled due to defense counsel issues.
- Counsel withdrew June 24, 2008; a new attorney could not attend July 15, 2008 trial; defendant sought a further continuance.
- Defendant appeared pro se on July 15, 2008; court denied continuance but acknowledged potential rescheduling; trial proceeded four days with substantial discovery and evidence.
- On appeal, defendant argued denial of the continuance denied his right to counsel; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, applying the Hug framework to balance right to counsel against public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying a continuance to obtain new counsel? | Gale argues no prejudice shown; state need to conclude case timely supports denial. | Gale contends no witnesses unavailability shown; right to counsel outweighed delay. | Yes; denial was an abuse of discretion and remand. |
| Whether the balance tipped against defendant, such that public interest overridden right to counsel? | Gale asserts timely trial favored state; right to counsel should be weighed. | Gale argues right to counsel outweighs public interest in expeditious proceedings. | Right to counsel outweighed public interest; reversal and remand warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wolfer, 241 Or. 15 (Or. 1965) (discretion in continuance rulings)
- State v. Rogers, 330 Or. 282 (Or. 2000) (discretion defined as permissible legal choices)
- Hug v. State, 186 Or.App. 569 (Or. App. 2003) (continuance balancing test; no mechanical rule)
- Pflieger v. State, 15 Or.App. 383 (Or. App. 1973) (balance right to counsel against public need for expedition)
- Lingren v. State, 79 Or. App. 324 (Or. App. 1986) (right to counsel balanced with timely resolution)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (no hard-and-fast test; circumstances control continuance decision)