State v. Lacey
282 Or. App. 123
| Or. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant elected to proceed pro se at a four-day criminal trial after discharging multiple attorneys and was repeatedly warned that disruptive conduct could lead to contempt, removal, and the trial continuing without anyone at his defense table.
- Despite warnings, defendant repeatedly disrupted proceedings and, shortly before closing arguments, was found in contempt, declared to have forfeited his right to make a closing argument, and removed from the courtroom.
- Because defendant was self-represented, no attorney remained at the defense table; the trial proceeded in his absence, the jury convicted him on most counts, and later found against him on sentencing-enhancement factors during a separate proceeding also conducted without him.
- On appeal, defendant relied primarily on State v. Menefee arguing the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to representation by continuing the trial without appointing counsel or obtaining a valid waiver of the right to representation.
- The Court of Appeals (lead opinion) reversed, holding that under Menefee (and United States v. Mack) a pro se defendant who is removed for misconduct does not forfeit the right to representation and the trial may not continue unless the court secures a waiver of that right or otherwise protects it (e.g., appoints counsel).
- A dissent argued Menefee is distinguishable because here the defendant received express, repeated warnings that removal would leave him without representation, so his conduct can be treated as an informed relinquishment and the trial court acted within its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial may continue in the absence of a removed pro se defendant without appointing counsel or obtaining a waiver of the right to representation | State: court warnings support inference defendant knowingly waived right to representation; no Menefee error | Defendant: removal without counsel or waiver violated Sixth Amendment right to representation; Menefee controls | Court: Reversed — under Menefee/Mack defendant did not forfeit right to representation; court must secure waiver or protect right (e.g., appoint counsel) before proceeding |
| Whether defendant preserved the constitutional claim on appeal | State: defendant failed to present the same constitutional argument at trial | Defendant: objected to exclusion, asked to present closing, alerted court to constitutional concerns | Court: preserved — objections and record showed court/prosecutor recognized constitutional stakes |
| Whether repeated warnings can substitute for an explicit waiver of the right to representation | State/dissent: warnings allow inference of knowing/intelligent waiver | Defendant: warnings did not inform him he would retain or lose the right to representation upon removal | Court: warnings here did not make defendant aware he retained the right to appointed counsel; cannot infer knowing waiver |
| Whether the error (if any) is harmless or structural | State: error limited to closing and enhancement phases; no reasonable likelihood outcome differed | Defendant: structural error requiring reversal | Court: error is structural under Mack/Menefee and mandates reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Menefee, 268 Or. App. 154 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a pro se defendant removed for misconduct does not forfeit the right to representation; court must obtain waiver or protect that right before proceeding)
- United States v. Mack, 362 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2004) ( Sixth Amendment error to continue trial against an empty defense table; such error is structural)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizing the constitutional right to self-representation and that the right may be terminated for serious obstructionist misconduct)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant can lose right to be present at trial for disruptive conduct after warning)
- Davis v. Grant, 532 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (surveying approaches to removal-of-pro-se-defendant issue and noting uncertainty; more Supreme Court guidance desirable)
- State v. Guerrero, 277 Or. App. 837 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (discussing standard for intelligent waiver of constitutional rights)