State v. Garth, 352 S.W.3d 644

Appellant Paul C. Garth was charged with first-degree domestic assault for events on December 18, 2009.
Garth lived with Victim as her boyfriend; after a breakup, he poured gasoline on her and ignited a fire.
Victim suffered burns and required skin grafts; hospital records and testimony documented the injuries.
Garth initially refused medical help and later delayed calling for assistance to avoid jail; hospital staff documented his statements.
During pre-trial, Garth repeatedly waived counsel and sought to represent himself, with the court conducting extensive on-the-record waivers.
Trial occurred November 8–9, 2010; the jury found Garth guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent	Garth knowingly waived counsel after thorough questioning.	Waiver was not knowing or intelligent due to lack of defense awareness.	Waiver was knowingly and intelligently made; no plain error.
Whether hearsay testimony about Victim's eye-blink statements was plain error	Testimony was admissible as non-prejudicial, cumulative evidence.	Eye-blink testimony was inadmissible hearsay violating confrontation rights.	No plain error; cumulative and cross-examined, no prejudice.
Whether Dr. Seltzer's testimony and Barnes Hospital records violated physician-patient privilege	Privilege was not violated given relevance to treatment.	Admission violated physician-patient privilege and expert treatment limits.	No reversible error; privilege waived and no prejudice shown.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing and intelligent waiver)
State v. Gilmore, 697 S.W.2d 172 (Mo. banc 1985) (expands Faretta rights to state courts)
State v. Hunter, 840 S.W.2d 850 (Mo.banc 1992) (waiver validity depends on particular facts and circumstances)
State v. Schnelle, 924 S.W.2d 292 (Mo.App. W.D.1996) (no automatic reversal for lack of advised defenses; record must show awareness)
State v. Davis, 934 S.W.2d 331 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (perils of self-representation; detailed advisement required)
State v. Jenkins, 304 S.W.3d 777 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (no specific litany of advisements required; perils must be conveyed)
State v. Parker, 890 S.W.2d 312 (Mo.App. S.D.1994) (continuance implications when denying pro se request late in trial)
State v. Morton, 648 S.W.2d 642 (Mo.App. S.D.1983) (trial court discretion on withdrawing waivers; continuances not intended use of right)
State v. Wilson, 816 S.W.2d 301 (Mo.App. S.D.1991) (inquiry into dangers of self-representation required)
State v. Bethel, 896 S.W.2d 497 (Mo.App. S.D.1995) (no fixed checklist; sufficient advisement to show knowing waiver)
State v. Quinn, 565 S.W.2d 665 (Mo.App. St.L.1978) (guide for knowingness of waiver; defendant informed of perils)
State v. Davis, 43 S.W.3d 805 (Mo.banc 2001) (evidence sufficiency of cumulative hearay assessments)