State v. Killiebrew, 158 A.3d 411

Defendant Issiah Killiebrew was tried for first‑degree arson after admitting in a written statement that he poured gasoline on a neighbor’s porch and set it afire following an argument. He was also found to have violated probation; the arson charge was tried to a jury and the probation charge to the court.
Trial spanned multiple days; on the second day the defendant repeatedly refused to return to the courtroom during an afternoon recess and said he had “fired” his privately retained attorney.
The court informed the defendant via intercom that the trial would continue in his absence, that he had counsel, and that refusing to return would waive certain trial participation rights.
When brought back to the courtroom, the defendant stated he did not want his lawyer and expressed anxiety and dissatisfaction with counsel’s representation but did not state affirmatively that he wished to represent himself.
Defense counsel moved for a continuance so the defendant could obtain new counsel; the court denied the motion, instructed the jury not to draw adverse inferences from the defendant’s temporary absence, and the trial proceeded.
Jury convicted the defendant of arson in the first degree; defendant appealed, arguing the court erred by not canvassing him regarding his right to counsel and his right to self‑representation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Killiebrew)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to canvass the defendant after he invoked the right to self‑representation	The defendant did not clearly and unequivocally invoke the right to represent himself; he sought substitution or delay, so no mandatory canvass was required	Defendant contends his statement that he “fired” his lawyer amounted to a clear, unequivocal invocation of the right to self‑representation, triggering a mandatory canvass	Court held invocation was not clear and unequivocal; no duty to canvass and no abuse of discretion in refusing to inquire further
Whether the court abused its discretion by not canvassing the defendant even if the request was ambiguous	Court may await a definitive assertion to reconcile competing rights; absent clear request there is no independent duty to canvass	Defendant argues that even a less‑than‑clear invocation should have prompted a canvass because the court must guard against waiver of counsel rights	Court held it was not required to canvass when request was ambiguous; trial court acted within its discretion

State v. Pires, 310 Conn. 222, 77 A.3d 87 (Conn. 2013) (explains requirement that defendant must clearly and unequivocally invoke right to self‑representation and court’s canvass duty thereafter)
State v. Jordan, 305 Conn. 1, 44 A.3d 794 (Conn. 2012) (clarifies mixed question review and totality‑of‑circumstances approach to self‑representation requests)
State v. Carter, 200 Conn. 607, 513 A.2d 47 (Conn. 1986) (trial court entitled to await a definitive request to proceed pro se; must balance rights)
State v. Drakeford, 202 Conn. 75, 519 A.2d 1194 (Conn. 1987) (last‑minute discharge of counsel mid‑trial requires exceptional circumstances)
State v. Gamer, 152 Conn. App. 1, 95 A.3d 1223 (Conn. App. 2014) (motions to substitute counsel/withdraw must show substantial reason; trial court discretion)