State v. Hightower
275 Or. App. 287
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant was criminally charged and convicted after a jury trial of encouraging child sexual abuse (first degree), sexual abuse (second degree), four counts of promoting prostitution, and compelling prostitution.
- Court-appointed counsel Hanrahan represented defendant through trial; defendant repeatedly sought substitution, alleging poor investigation and conflicts, which the court denied as strategic disagreements.
- During trial defendant repeatedly interrupted witnesses and ignored admonitions; the court threatened removal three times for disruptive behavior.
- Midtrial, while the state’s final witness was being cross-examined, defendant moved to represent himself pro se, asserting counsel failed to elicit testimony about inconsistent victim statements regarding BB-gun conduct.
- The trial court denied the midtrial request, explaining it would not allow a midtrial change of representation, that the BB-gun evidence was irrelevant, and expressing concern granting the request would disrupt the orderly conduct of the trial.
- On appeal defendant argued the denial violated his state and federal constitutional rights to self-representation; the court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying midtrial request to proceed pro se under Article I, §11 | State: trial court implicitly found granting request would be disruptive and within discretion to deny | Defendant: court failed to articulate a legally permissible reason or make an on-the-record finding that denial was necessary | Court held denial was within discretion; record supports implicit finding that self-representation midtrial would disrupt proceedings |
| Whether waiver of counsel inquiry required when defendant requests to proceed pro se midtrial | State: no extended waiver inquiry required because request was untimely/disruptive | Defendant: court should have ensured waiver was intelligent and on the record | Court noted waiver must be intelligent, but a court may deny if request is untimely, equivocal, or would disrupt; here denial was proper |
| Whether timing (midtrial) automatically bars self-representation | State: timing permits discretion to deny due to potential disruption | Defendant: right to self-representation is absolute regardless of timing absent a specific finding | Court: timing is relevant; midtrial requests may be denied if disruptive; right is not absolute in midtrial context |
| Whether record required explicit finding of disruption | State: implicit finding suffices if record supports it | Defendant: court had to articulate a legally permissible reason on the record | Court: implicit conclusion that granting would be disruptive was supported by record of interruptions and irrelevance of requested evidence; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miller, 254 Or. App. 514 (Or. Ct. App.) (discusses state constitutional right to self-representation and limits)
- State v. Verna, 9 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App.) (recognizes Article I, §11 right to proceed pro se)
- State v. Blanchard, 236 Or. App. 472 (Or. Ct. App.) (requires waiver to be intelligent and understanding; court may deny if request equivocal or disruptive)
- State v. Fredinburg, 257 Or. App. 473 (Or. Ct. App.) (trial court may deny untimely/midtrial requests as disruptive; implicit findings may suffice)
- State v. Kinney, 264 Or. App. 612 (Or. Ct. App.) (supports denying self-representation after observation of disruptive behavior)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (recognizes Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (applies right to counsel to states via due process)