State v. Peltier

Under State v. Jacobson, 296 Or App 87 (2019) and State v. Guerrero, 277 Or App 837 (2016), in order to waive a constitutional right, the record must reflect a defendant’s intent to waive the right in question, as well as the defendant’s understanding of the right and consequences of waiver.

Defendant appealed his conviction for Assault IV. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s allowance of the trial to proceed in absentia. On appeal, Defendant argued that remaining silently in his cell did not constitute a valid waiver of his right to be present. In response, the state argued that Defendant waived his right to be present by engaging in misconduct or did so impliedly by willfully ignoring attempts to bring him to trial. Under State v. Jacobson, 296 Or App 87 (2019) and State v. Guerrero, 277 Or App 837 (2016), in order to waive a constitutional right, the record must reflect a defendant’s intent to waive the right in question, as well as the defendant’s understanding of the right and consequences of waiver. The Court first determined that Defendant’s silence inside his jail cell did not rise to the level of courtroom disruption that causes a trial to be unable to proceed that constitutes misconduct. The Court also noted that even if the Defendant’s actions constituted misconduct, he still had to be informed of his rights and the consequences of waiver. The Court determined that the Court’s instructions that Defendant be told of his right to be present, and third-party testimony that jail staff relayed the message, was insufficient to establish that Defendant’s waiver was knowing. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.