State v. Dalebout
| Decision Date | 13 April 1971 |
| Citation | 480 P.2d 451,4 Or.App. 601 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Peter DALEBOUT, Sr., Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Peter Dalebout, Sr., in pro. per., Sweet Home, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Jacob B. Tanzer, Sol. Gen. Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and THORNTON, JJ.
This appeal arises out of an incident which occurred near Sweet Home in Linn County on March 23, 1970. About a week prior to the incident the Oregon State Police had received a letter signed by the defendant's son, asking a series of questions concerning the law of arrest, search and seizure, carrying of concealable weapons, and other similar questions.
On the date of the incident two officers proceeded by patrol car to the address shown on the letter to discuss this matter with the writer. When one of the officers knocked, the defendant opened the door and pointed a shotgun at the officers. After a brief conversation, during which the defendant kept the gun pointed at the officers at a distance of '3 feet or 4 feet,' both officers left the premises.
Defendant was thereafter charged in the district court with having pointed a firearm at another, in violation of ORS 163.320. 1 He entered a plea of not guilty.
A jury found him guilty as charged, and he was sentenced to serve four months in the county jail, pay a fine of $250, and be placed on probation for one year with all but 10 days of the jail sentence suspended.
Thereupon defendant appealed to the circuit court. The case was tried de novo, the defendant was again found guilty by the jury, and the identical sentence was imposed by the circuit court judge.
The record shows that defendant was able to employ private legal counsel but elected to conduct his own defense.
He has now appealed to this court, once more acting as his own attorney. In his brief defendant states first, that the circuit court erred 'in not emphasizing to the defendant the fact that he was not represented by an attorney and had no legal training.' He also assigns as grounds for reversal certain other alleged 'errors' by the circuit court at the trial, including failure by the court to answer certain legal questions propounded by defendant; denial of motions for a dismissal; failure to insist that defendant testify on certain matters which he contend led up to the incident; and giving incorrect instructions to the jury on self-defense.
Oregon Constitution, Art. I, § 11, provides:
'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right * * * to be heard by himself and counsel; * * *.'
Broadly stated, a defendant in a criminal case has a right to conduct his own defense if he chooses, provided (1) he is Sui juris, (2) mentally competent, and (3) such conduct does not disrupt the judicial process or jeopardize fair trial. State v. Thomlinson, 78 S.D. 235, 100 N.W.2d 121, 77 A.L.R.2d 1229 (1960); and see Annotation, Right of defendant in criminal case to conduct defense in person, or to participate with counsel, 77 A.L.R.2d 1233 et seq. The trial judge need not force counsel upon an unwilling defendant. Carter v. Illinois, 329 U.S. 173, 67 S.Ct. 216, 91 L.Ed. 172 (1946). The trial may proceed with defendant representing himself. State v. Sands, Or.App., 90 Adv.Sh. 1397, 469 P.2d 795 (1970).
But having chosen to conduct his own defense he assumes the responsibility for his decision. People v. Richardson, 17 Ill.2d 253, 161 N.E.2d 268 (1959). Defendant cannot now overturn his conviction on the ground that the judge erred in allowing him to do so. Blanton v. State, 229 Ind. 701, 98 N.E.2d 186 (1951).
As to the remaining asserted 'errors' we have carefully scrutinized the record on each of these points and fail to find merit in defendant's contentions. The officers were not trespassers: ORS 164.460. Defendant's argument...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Van Rees
...v. Knight, 451 F.2d 275, 278 (5th Cir. 1971); Mandamus denied 405 U.S. 965, 92 S.Ct. 1171, 31 L.Ed.2d 240 (1972); State v. Dalebout, 480 P.2d 451, 452 (Or.App.1971) (based on an Oregon statute); Gardner v. State, 6 Md.App. 483, 251 A.2d 901, 907 (Md. Ct. of Special App. 1969); State v. Luku......
-
State v. Verna
...counsel * * *.' Oregon Constitution, Art. I, § 11; State v. Butchek, 121 Or. 141, 153, 253 P. 367, 254 P. 805 (1927); State v. Dalebout, 4 Or.App. 601, 480 P.2d 451 (1971). The same right has been held to arise out of the federal constitution, United States v. Plattner, 330 F.2d 271, 275 (2......
-
State v. Whitlow
...counsel * * *.' Oregon Constitution, Art. I, § 11; State v. Butchek, 121 Or. 141, 153, 253 P. 367, 254 P. 805 (1927); State v. Dalebout, 4 Or.App. 601, 480 P.2d 451 (1971). See State v. Verna, 9 Or.App. 620, 498 P.2d 793 (1972). The fact that the Oregon constitutional provision uses the con......
-
State v. Serrell
...1224, 501 P.2d 328 (1972). Unlike the defendant in State v. Verna, Or.App., 95 Adv.Sh. 167, 498 P.2d 793 (1972), and State v. Dalebout, 4 Or.App. 601, 480 P.2d 451, Sup.Ct. review denied (1971), defendant made no timely demand to represent himself, either prior to or at the time he was remo......