· 4/1/2025

State v. Petteway

Citations

  • 351 Conn. 682

Syllabus

Convicted of murder and criminal violation of a standing criminal protective order, the defendant appealed to this court. Although the defendant had elected to represent himself during his trial, the trial court determined amid the trial proceedings that it was necessary to reappoint the defendant's former standby counsel to represent the defendant on the basis of the defendant's conduct, including his conscious decision not to appear in court on a particular occasion. On appeal, the defendant claimed that he was entitled to a new trial because the trial court had violated his constitutional right to self-representation. Held: The trial court did not violate the defendant's right to self-representation, the defendant's conduct, including his conscious decision not to appear in court, having functioned as a forfeiture of that right. The record indicated that there were multiple instances during which the defendant either had refused court-ordered transportation, failed to appear at scheduled hearings, or threatened to leave trial proceedings, and, although his conduct was not violent, it nonetheless reflected an intolerable pattern of obstructionist and disruptive behavior. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant had forfeited his right to self-representation when he refused to return to court to continue voir dire after a lunch break, as that finding was based on the court's subsidiary finding that the defendant had engaged in dilatory, disruptive, and manipulative conduct, the court's decision to reappoint standby counsel was not a premature or impulsive response to the defen- dant's conduct but was made in an effort to regain control of the courtroom and the trial schedule, and the defendant was aware that his refusal to appear in court without a justification would constitute a forfeiture of his right to represent himself. Contrary to the defendant's argument that his refusal to return to court to continue voir dire after the lu

Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.