State v. Towle
162 N.H. 799
N.H.2011Background
- Towle was convicted of four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and four counts of criminal liability for the conduct of another.
- Charges included fellatio and anal penetration of Towle's minor son, J.T., and encouraging his wife and another adult woman to have sex with J.T.
- At a final pre-trial, defense counsel sought a continuance due to a purported conflict of interest stemming from counsel’s election as mayor; Towle indicated he would prefer to proceed pro se if counsel was not dismissed or if the case was continued.
- The court denied further continuance and did not clearly inquire into Towle’s request to represent himself; Towle later asked to proceed pro se.
- The NH Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Towle’s request to proceed pro se was affirmative and unequivocal and that the court’s failure to conduct a Faretta colloquy amounted to structural error.
- Dissent argued the request was ambiguous and that the court could properly assess the record, but the majority held Faretta procedures were required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Towle’s self-representation request clear and unequivocal? | Towle’s request was timely, affirmative and unequivocal. | The court could have found the request equivocal or conditional. | Yes; the request was affirmative and unequivocal. |
| Did the trial court’s failure to conduct a Faretta colloquy constitute structural error requiring automatic reversal? | Failure to conduct Faretta inquiry violated Towle’s constitutional rights. | The court could have addressed the request under existing procedures. | Yes; structural error requiring reversal and a new trial. |
| What is the appropriate remedy given the Faretta error? | Remand for new trial with proper Faretta procedures. | Remand or affirmation depending on record developments. | Reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ayer, 154 N.H. 500 (2006) (right to self-representation and counsel; distinctly weighed rights)
- State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666 (2005) (duty to inquire when Faretta rights invoked or raised ambiguities)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing, intelligent waiver)
- State v. Panzera, 139 N.H. 235 (1994) (waiver standards for self-representation; unequivocality)
- Williams v. Bartlett, 44 F.3d 95 (1994) (conditional requests not necessarily equivocal for self-representation)