Legal Opinion

State v. Hightower

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 2017No. CC 120632737; CA A154220; SC S063924PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.

The issue in this case is the scope of a criminal defendant’s right to self-representation when that right is invoked in the middle of trial. We hold that, although Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution establishes a criminal defendant’s right to represent himself or herself in a criminal proceeding, the right is not unqualified. In particular, when the right is asserted well after trial commences, the trial court retains discretion to weigh its exercise against the constitutional obligation to preserve the integrity and fairness of the proceeding, as well as the court’s interest…

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. State v. HesterTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State v. RogersOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State v. MeyrickOregon Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. FaschingOregon Supreme Court · 2022
  2. State of Maine v. Carine ReevesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2022
  3. State v. ClardyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  4. State v. HightowerOregon Supreme Court · 2021
  5. State v. NyquistCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018

41 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