State v. Hightower
361 Or. 412
| Or. | 2017Background
- Defendant Gregory Hightower was charged with multiple sex offenses and was provided court‑appointed counsel.
- During the prosecution’s case‑in‑chief, defendant repeatedly criticized and interrupted his attorney and the proceedings.
- On the fourth day of trial, after the state rested, defendant repeatedly moved to discharge counsel and to represent himself to present evidence counsel refused to offer.
- The trial court repeatedly denied mid‑trial requests, stating as a legal rule that a defendant may not "change horses in the midstream" and asserting the right to self‑representation does not start mid‑trial.
- Defendant was convicted on seven counts and sentenced to life without parole; he appealed the denial of his motions to proceed pro se.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review and reversed, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hightower) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant may invoke the right to self‑representation after trial begins | The right must be exercised before trial; if asserted mid‑trial, denial reviewed for abuse of discretion | The right is not absolute but court must permit self‑representation unless defendant’s conduct is deliberately disruptive; court must make findings | A defendant may invoke self‑representation after trial begins, but the trial court has discretion to grant or deny such a mid‑trial request in light of competing interests; denial requires a record showing how discretion was exercised |
| Standard of review for denial of mid‑trial request to proceed pro se | Deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review appropriate | Same, but court must make findings enabling review | Abuse‑of‑discretion review; record must reflect how the court balanced defendant’s right against trial integrity and efficiency |
| Whether categorical bar to mid‑trial self‑representation is legally permissible | Trial courts may decline requests made after trial begins | Categorical prohibition is incorrect; courts must consider circumstances | Categorical rule prohibiting mid‑trial waiver is error of law; discretion must be exercised case‑by‑case |
| Record/finding requirements when denying a mid‑trial request | No strict formula; practical deference to trial court | At minimum, need findings showing basis (e.g., disruption) so appellate review is possible | Trial court should make a record showing reasons for denying request; express findings preferred though not always required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Butchek, 121 Or. 141 (1927) (recognizing Oregon constitutional right to self‑representation)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self‑representation exists federally)
- State v. Rogers, 330 Or. 282 (2000) (trial court must balance defendant’s rights with its duty to conduct an orderly, expeditious trial)
- State v. Guzek, 358 Or. 251 (2015) (appellate review aided by a direct, express record of trial court findings)
- State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125 (1992) (waiver of counsel must be knowing and voluntary)