Legal Opinion

State v. Nyquist

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 22, 2018No. A163162PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. State v. WalkerOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  3. State v. MeyrickOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  4. State v. HightowerOregon Supreme Court · 2017
  5. State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. HightowerOregon Supreme Court · 2021
  2. State v. GroffCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  3. State v. OmarCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  4. State v. GlasbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  5. State v. MartineauCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API