State v. Perez

A trial court has discretion to order physical restraint of a defendant if there is sufficient evidence of a substantial risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior including the risk of assaultive conduct toward other persons and the risk of an attempted escape from custody. State v. Washington, 355 Or 612, 628, 330 P.3d 596 (2014).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for offenses including fourth-degree assault, and unlawful entry into a motor vehicle. Defendant assigned error to the use of restraints during his trial. Defendant argued that the trial court erred by requiring him to wear restraints during his bench trial and failing to free one of his hands from the restraints. The State argued that due to his criminal history the prosecutor would be distracted if he were not in restraints and since this was a bench trial there was no worry about the restraints influencing the jury. “[A] trial court has discretion to order physical restraint of a defendant if there is sufficient evidence of a substantial risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior including the risk of assaultive conduct toward other persons and the risk of an attempted escape from custody.” State v. Washington, 355 Or 612, 628, 330 P.3d 596 (2014). The Court found that in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that Defendant be in restraints. The trial court ruling was not based just on Defendant’s prior convictions, but specifically his criminal history of violent conduct against correctional staff. Affirmed.