State v. Hightower (2017)

But it was not sufficient, we emphasized, “that an appellate court may be able to speculate about what might have been the trial court’s rationale for its decision.” 361 Or at 421 (emphasis in original).

As we will explain, because no case- specific, institutional, or systemic factors weigh in favor of 9 Defendant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in denying his motion because that court failed to provide a “sufficient explanation.” However, we under- stand the court’s decision to be based on its default rule that dismissal would only be granted in the “narrow category of cases” identified in Lasheski II. 312 Or App at 716 ; cf. Hightower, 361 Or at 421 (explaining th…

Hightower, 361 Or at 417 (“It necessarily follows that, by asserting the right to counsel, a defendant waives 4 Defendant also assigns error to the court’s denial of the request to repre- sent himself during defendant’s pretrial hearing to address his motion for substi- tute counsel on November 23, 2015.

Article I, section 11, provides, in part, that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right *** to be heard by himself and counsel[.]” The Sixth Amendment provides, in part, that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall⅜ * * have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” See Hightower, 361 Or at 416 (“The right to self-representation is the counterpart to the right to be represented by counsel at trial.”); State v. Blanchard, 236 Or App 472…

So, for example, if a court’s decision as to whether to grant a request for self-representation turns on the court’s legal conclusions as to the scope of the right, that determination is reviewed for errors of law.” Hightower, 361 Or at 421 (citations omitted); see also State v. Ashbaugh, 317 Or App 767, 772 , 505 P3d 1015 (2022) (reviewing a trial court’s decision around the scope of the right of self-representation for legal error and the denial of the right of self-repres…

So, for example, if a court’s decision as to whether to grant a request for self-representation turns on the court’s legal conclusions as to the scope of the right, that determination is reviewed for errors of law.” Hightower, 361 Or at 421 (citations omitted); see also State v. Ashbaugh, 317 Or App 767, 772 , 505 P3d 1015 (2022) (reviewing a trial court’s decision around the scope of the right of self-representation for legal error and the denial of the right of self-repres…

Id. at 422 (emphasis added).

In ensuring that a defendant’s waiver of counsel and corresponding assertion of the right to self-representation is made knowingly, the trial court must warn the defendant of “the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” Hightower, 361 Or at 417 (internal quotation marks omit- ted).

In discussing how appellate courts will review such rulings for an abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court stated that the trial court record “must include some indication of how the trial court actually weighed the relevant competing interests involved.” Id. at 421 (emphasis added).

See State ex rel Mikkelsen v. Hill, 315 Or 452, 458 , 847 P2d 402 (1993) (explaining that “[a] £wil[l]ful’ mental state is an element of the offense of contempt; that element may be established by proof that a party had knowledge of a valid court order and failed to comply with the order”); cf. Hightower, 361 Or at 421 (recognizing that decisions whether to grant a request for self-representation could rest on either factual or legal grounds).

See State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 417 , 393 P3d 224 (2017) (“a valid waiver of the right to counsel must be preceded by a warning concerning the ‘dangers and disadvantages of self-representation’” (quoting Meyrick, 313 Or at 133 )); State v. Guerrero, 277 Or App 837, 845 , 373 P3d 1127 (2016) (“[I]n order for the advance warning requirement to be meaningful, a defendant must understand the risks and disadvantages of self-representation before he engages in the additional m…

Second, if the trial court applied the correct standard, “we review the record to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining competency.” Id.; see also State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 421 , 393 P3d 224 (2017) (recognizing 6 OEC 104(1) provides: “Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of …

Second, if the trial court applied the correct standard, “we review the record to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining competency.” Id.; see also State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 421 , 393 P3d 224 (2017) (recognizing 6 OEC 104(1) provides: “Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of …

The state further urges that any error was harmless, because “defen- dant was not compelled to appear with undesired counsel at a critical stage of his case.” “We review the denial of the right to self- representation, as well as any underlying legal conclusions related to the scope of the right of self-representation, for legal error.” State v. Ashbaugh, 317 Or App 767, 772 , 505 P3d 1015 (2022); State v. Dunn, 318 Or App 744, 745 , 508 P3d 586 (2022) (“Whether the trial co…

See Oakmont, LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 359 Or 779, 789 , 377 P3d 523 (2016) (noting that, “[i]n reviewing a ruling for abuse of discretion, it can be important to distinguish the factual and legal issues that underlie * * * a trial court’s exercise of discretion,” and that, “when a trial court’s exercise of discretion rests on an incorrect legal premise, an appellate court will review that legal premise independently” (citing State v. Rogers, 330 Or 282, 312 , 4 P3d 1261 (2000))…

See Hightower , 361 Or. at 418 , 421 , 393 P.3d 224 (record must reflect how trial court weighed defendant's right to self-representation against "other relevant interests that come into play at the commencement of trial").

See Hightower , 361 Or. at 422 , 393 P.3d 224 (reviewing trial court's decision to deny the defendant's request to proceed without counsel for legal error).

App. at 734 , 403 P.3d 484 (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Hightower , 361 Or. 412 , 421, 393 P.3d 224 (2017) (discretion "may be predicated on certain subsidiary determinations-either findings of fact or conclusions of law-that trigger their own standards of review"). *745 Here we conclude that the court abused its discretion as a matter of law, because it declined to consider petitioner's "suitable counsel" request under circumstances that required it to d…

See Hayne, 293 Or App at 366 (“[A] trial court has the discretion to deny a men- tally ill defendant’s request for self-representation when the mental illness impairs the defendant’s ability to stand trial Nonprecedential Memo Op: 348 Or App 242 (2026) 247 without the assistance of counsel * * *.”); see also Hightower, 361 Or at 421 (explaining that a “trial court’s decision in response to a request for self-representation is ordinarily a matter of discretion” when the trial…

See id. at 421 ; see also Meyrick, 313 Or at 133 (setting out legal standard for waiver analysis).

See Hightower I, 361 Or at 422 (noting that “the test is not whether the court ‘reasonably could have’ made that determination.

See, e.g., State v. Hightower, 393 P.3d 224, 228-29 (Or. 2017); Brown, 676 A.2d at 521 .