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 CourtListenerCites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1975-06-30· cited 11,585×
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court· 1965-04-05· cited 4,761×
- Godinez v. MoranSupreme Court· 1993-06-24· cited 1,916×
- Connecticut v. JohnsonSupreme Court· 1983-02-23· cited 606×
- United States v. Ronald J. GoldbergThird Circuit· 1995-10-16· cited 259×
- Crosby v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1993-01-13· cited 239×
- Clark v. PerezSecond Circuit· 2008-01-03· cited 138×
- The United States of America v. Ronald Paul DujanovicNinth Circuit· 1973-10-15· cited 110×
- Torres v. United StatesSecond Circuit· 1998-03-25· cited 78×
- State v. GoreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-09-23· cited 70×
- State v. D'AntonioSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-08-02· cited 65×
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-08-04· cited 55×
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-03-13· cited 52×
- United States v. LongFifth Circuit· 2010-02-19· cited 43×
- United States v. Michael L. BrockSeventh Circuit· 1998-10-30· cited 43×
- Edwards v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 2009-03-17· cited 34×
- State v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-09-15· cited 33×
- United States v. MosleyEighth Circuit· 2010-06-11· cited 31×
- State v. JordanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-05-29· cited 24×
- Martinez v. United States District Court for the Central District of CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1998-12-07· cited 11×
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.