State v. Nyquist, 427 P.3d 1137

Defendant was tried in a court trial on multiple charges including second-degree domestic-violence assault and several vehicle offenses; convicted on five counts and acquitted on one.
During cross-examination of the victim, defendant told counsel "You're fired. I'm going to do it myself" and told the court he needed to "fight my case myself from this point on."
The prosecutor objected as the request came mid-trial; the court refused to allow defendant to question the witness directly but offered that defendant could write questions for counsel to ask.
The court said it would not remove defense counsel and concluded it had seen nothing to justify replacing counsel; defendant responded "Okay."
The appellate issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's mid-trial request to represent himself without making a record of how it weighed competing interests.
The Court of Appeals held the request was an unequivocal demand for self-representation, the trial court failed to exercise the required discretionary balancing on the record, and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant unequivocally requested to proceed pro se mid-trial	Request was equivocal—he only sought to ask questions and accepted the court's alternative of writing questions for counsel	He unequivocally asked to "do it myself" and "fight my case myself" for the remainder of the trial	Defendant's statements were unequivocal; he requested to represent himself
Whether defendant abandoned the request by accepting the court's alternative	By saying "Okay" he accepted the court's accommodation and abandoned the pro se request	The court had already denied the request; "Okay" did not waive preservation	No abandonment; defendant was not required to repeat the request after the court ruled
Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion in denying a mid-trial Faretta/Hightower request	Denial was appropriate because counsel was providing adequate representation and the offered alternative addressed the concern	Court abused discretion by denying request without on-record balancing of defendant's right vs. trial integrity/expediency	Court abused its discretion by failing to weigh competing interests on the record; reversal required
Remedy for the abuse of discretion	Trial court could later balance on the record and decide whether to grant a new trial	Reversal and remand for new trial	Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the convicted counts

State v. Hightower, 361 Or. 412 (explains mutual exclusivity of right to counsel and right to self-representation; court must record balancing of interests)
State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125 (requires warning about dangers of self-representation before accepting waiver)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
State v. Walker, 350 Or. 540 (once court rules, party need not renew a contention to preserve it)
State v. Miller, 254 Or. App. 514 (abuse of discretion in denying self-representation requires reversal and remand)
State v. Ortega, 286 Or. App. 673 (same remedy: reverse and remand when court improperly denies pro se request)