Morrison v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware
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
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Urquhart v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2019
- Holland v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2017
- Dolina v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2024
- Holland v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2017
- Milton v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.