Disruptive Oregon Criminal Defendant Properly Denied Self-Representation

On August 13, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that a trial court properly refused to allow a disruptive criminal defendant to represent himself at trial. The court erred, however, in doubling its twelve summary contempt sanctions.

William Kinney was charged with crimes in two separate cases that were consolidated for trial. The court repeatedly warned Kinney to stop disrupting the pretrial proceedings.

One day before trial Kinney continually interrupted a pretrial hearing and the court warned defense counsel that if Kinney did not stop the disruptions, he would not be permitted in the courtroom during trial.

On the morning of trial, Kinney again interrupted the proceedings, telling the court that he did not want his attorney to represent him. After speaking with Kinney about his disruptiveness and asking if he wanted to proceed pro se, the trial court concluded that he was making a motion to proceed pro se.

The court then denied that motion, finding that Kinney had the right to represent himself if he could “do so without disrupting the process of the Court” but also finding that he could not “act without disrupting the process of court or obeying the rules of procedure to perform in the courtroom.” Kinney continued to disrupt the trial, causing the court to cite him for contempt of court twelve times, pursuant to ORS 33.096.

Kinney was ultimately convicted of three criminal charges. At sentencing, the court imposed contempt of court sanctions of 10 days in jail and a $250 fine on each of the twelve citations, for a total of 120 days in jail and a $3000 fine. A September 27, 2010 Judgment of Contempt required Kinney to serve the 120 day contempt sanction consecutively to his prison sentences on the criminal convictions.

Without notice to Kinney, the trial court issued October 27, 2010 judgments in each of the consolidated criminal cases, expressly noting the twelve contempt sanctions in each judgment.

After filing his notice of appeal, Kinney moved the trial court for amended judgments in both cases. The court amended the judgments, providing twelve separate summary contempt sanctions in one case and another twelve separate summary contempt sanctions in the other case, increasing his contempt sanctions from 12 to 24.

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s refusal to allow Kinney to represent himself, noting that the right to self-representation is not absolute.

Citing State v. Miller, 254 Or App 514, 524, 295 P.3d 158 (2013), the court rejected Kinney’s argument that the trial court may not prevent self-representation in order to preempt courtroom disruption. The trial court is not required to wait until the defendant has actually disrupted a trial. Rather, the court observed that self-representation may be denied for anticipated disruption of the proceedings.

“The trial court made its findings on the day of trial, after having observed defendant’s behavior on that day and the day before,” the court found, “The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s request for self-representation prior to the trial’s commencement.”

The court reversed the punitive contempt sanctions, however, agreeing with Kinney and the state’s concession “that the trial court’s doubling of the contempt citations was error under ORS 33.096.”

Having found twelve instances of contempt, the trial court “had no authority to issue subsequent judgments that effectively doubled the cited instances of contempt,” the court held.

“The effect of the trial court’s modification increased defendant’s contempt sanctions from 12 to 24.”

See: State v. Kinney, 264 Or App 612 (2014).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case