Legal Opinion
State v. Meyrick
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided April 23, 1992No. DC DCR 88-13646; CA A61490; SC S38249PublishedCited by 127 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.
In this criminal case, the Court of Appeals held that, because the record does not show that defendant understood the elements of the crime of which he was charged and convicted, the trial court erred when it allowed defendant to waive his right to counsel. State v. Meyrick, 106 Or App 682, 686, 809 P2d 710 (1991). We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ holding, and we conclude that defendant knew of his right to counsel at trial and that he intentionally relinquished that right. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision.
Defendant was charged with menacing and criminal mischief…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- 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
- Argersinger v. HamlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by127 opinions
- State v. RogersOregon Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. RamirezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
- State v. AllisonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- State v. HightowerOregon Supreme Court · 2017
- State v. ColeOregon Supreme Court · 1996
122 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.