State v. Nyquist
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the Court
BUNCH, J. pro tempore.
*503In this criminal case, defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of five crimes, contending that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his mid-trial request to represent himself. As explained below, we agree and, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new trial.
Before setting out the facts, we summarize the relevant law. Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, a defendant has both the right to be represented by counsel and the right to self-representation. State v. Hightower , 361 Or. 412, 416-17, 393 P.3d 224 (2017). Those two rights are…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- State v. WalkerOregon Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. MeyrickOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. HightowerOregon Supreme Court · 2017
- State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. HightowerOregon Supreme Court · 2021
- State v. GroffCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- State v. OmarCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- State v. GlasbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
- State v. MartineauCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.