Shorthill v. State

[CRIMINAL PROCEDURE]

 

In Shorthill v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the lower court did not err in revoking a defendant’s permission to represent himself in court, when the defendant proved incompetent in representing himself in accordance with the rules of the court room.[2] In September 2005, Carry Eugene Shorthill was convicted of felony eluding and third-degree assault after a low-speed car chase on the Glenn Highway.[3] Shorthill was initially represented by counsel from the Public Defender Agency until he announced that he would represent himself in November 2006.[4] The superior court found that Shorthill was competent and allowed him to represent himself for the next year of proceedings.5 However, during the year of pre-trial litigation it became evident that Shorthill was incapable of aptly executing his role in judicial proceedings.6 He was unable to figure out the rules for questioning witnesses and making motions, leading to the superior court’s decision to revoke his permission to represent himself.7 On appeal, Shorthill challenged the lower court’s decision, claiming that it violated his right of self-representation.8 The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision to revoke Shorthill’s permission to self-representation, reasoning that courts have the authority to restrict a defendant’s right to self-representation in criminal proceedings where the defendant fails to demonstrate competency in conducting trial proceedings by himself.9 The supreme court further reasoned that a defendant’s inability to organize defenses, formulate and present motions, examine witnesses, present evidence, and to argue points of law can prejudice the fairness of criminal proceedings and are sufficient grounds to allow court’s to revoke the right of self-representation.10 Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court found that a trial court does not err in revoking a defendant’s right to self-representation, where the defendant’s inability to follow the court’s procedure would prejudice him.

[1] 354 P.3d 1093 (Alaska, 2015).

[2] Id. at 1096.

[3] Id. at 1097.

[4] Id.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 1098.

8 Id.

9 Id. at 1097.

10 Id. at 1111.

Shorthill v. State

[CRIMINAL PROCEDURE]

 

In Shorthill v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the lower court did not err in revoking a defendant’s permission to represent himself in court, when the defendant proved incompetent in representing himself in accordance with the rules of the court room.[2] In September 2005, Carry Eugene Shorthill was convicted of felony eluding and third-degree assault after a low-speed car chase on the Glenn Highway.[3] Shorthill was initially represented by counsel from the Public Defender Agency until he announced that he would represent himself in November 2006.[4] The superior court found that Shorthill was competent and allowed him to represent himself for the next year of proceedings.5 However, during the year of pre-trial litigation it became evident that Shorthill was incapable of aptly executing his role in judicial proceedings.6 He was unable to figure out the rules for questioning witnesses and making motions, leading to the superior court’s decision to revoke his permission to represent himself.7 On appeal, Shorthill challenged the lower court’s decision, claiming that it violated his right of self-representation.8 The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision to revoke Shorthill’s permission to self-representation, reasoning that courts have the authority to restrict a defendant’s right to self-representation in criminal proceedings where the defendant fails to demonstrate competency in conducting trial proceedings by himself.9 The supreme court further reasoned that a defendant’s inability to organize defenses, formulate and present motions, examine witnesses, present evidence, and to argue points of law can prejudice the fairness of criminal proceedings and are sufficient grounds to allow court’s to revoke the right of self-representation.10 Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court found that a trial court does not err in revoking a defendant’s right to self-representation, where the defendant’s inability to follow the court’s procedure would prejudice him.

[1] 354 P.3d 1093 (Alaska, 2015).

[2] Id. at 1096.

[3] Id. at 1097.

[4] Id.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 1098.

8 Id.

9 Id. at 1097.

10 Id. at 1111.