Legal Opinion

Morrison v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided February 25, 2016No. 432, 2015PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOLLAND, Justice:

The issue in this case is whether Morrison’s waiver of his right to counsel for trial was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary as required by Faretta v. California. 1 In United States v. Welty, 2 the Third Circuit adopted guidelines for a waiver of counsel inquiry. This Court adopted the Welty guidelines in Briscoe v. State. 3 The purpose of the Briscoe/Welty guidelines is to promote a comprehensive inquiry before permitting a waiver of counsel. The record reflects that the waiver colloquy between the Trial Judge and Morrison was admittedly incomplete. The State argues that…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Urquhart v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2019
  2. Holland v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2017
  3. Dolina v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2024
  4. Holland v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2017
  5. Milton v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016

9 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