State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 19 December 1972 |
| Citation | 95 Adv.Sh. 1224,501 P.2d 328,11 Or.App. 227 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Tolly Ricardo WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
F. E. Glenn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
John H. Clough, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and John W. Osburn, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and FORT, JJ.
Defendant, convicted of assault with intent to rape, asserts on appeal that the trial judge's actions in removing him from the courtroom during his trial denied him his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him and the opportunity to communicate with counsel.
Throughout his trial defendant chanted in a monotone voice. This chanting first occurred at a hearing on a pretrial motion on February 9, 1972, and continued whenever the defendant was in the courtroom. The chanting was not intermittent but was continuous during the time defendant was in the courtroom. The court reporter was unable to report the precise words of the chant, but the following general description was inserted in the transcript:
'(* * *
The trial judge advised defendant on February 9, when the chanting began, that the trial would begin the next morning, that it would be in defendant's best interest to cooperate with his attorney and that he could assist if he so chose. On the morning of trial the court advised defendant that if he did not desist from his conduct he would be removed from the courtroom. Defendant continued his chanting, uninterrupted by the court's statement to him. Thereafter, defendant was removed to a jury room where a closed circuit television system was set up to transmit the courtroom proceedings to him. Defendant was brought back to the courtroom a number of times. Each time he was advised that he could either cease his chanting and remain, or continue and be removed. Each time the chanting continued and defendant was removed to the jury room. By the trial court's direction video tapes were made of defendant's conduct in court and the tapes were made a part of the record on appeal. The tapes were viewed by this court in reviewing the record in the case.
The sole issue before us on appeal is whether defendant's conduct warranted the trial judge's action of excluding him from the courtroom. There is no question as to defendant's competence to stand trial as the trial judge specifically found, after hearing expert testimony, that defendant was able to understand the proceedings against him, to assist and cooperate with his counsel, and to participate in his defense. Indeed, both psychiatrists (including defendant's own expert) testified that, in their opinions, defendant's conduct was a wilful attempt to avoid a stressful situation.
One of the basic rights of an accused is his right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, reh denied 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684, 26 L.Ed.2d 80 (1970); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S.Ct. 136, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892). This right may be lost, however, if the defendant engages in misconduct so disruptive that the trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom. Illinois v. Allen, supra. The determination as to when the misconduct has reached such an intensity must lie within the sound discretion of the trial judge since, as the Allen court stated:
'* * * (T)trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Menefee
...no one to represent him during the trial and deprived him of significant constitutional rights.In response, citing State v. Williams, 11 Or.App. 227, 501 P.2d 328, rev. den. (1972), and Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, reh'g den., 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684, ......
-
State v. Menefee
...no one to represent him during the trial and deprived him of significant constitutional rights. In response, citing State v. Williams, 11 Or.App. 227, 501 P.2d 328, rev. den. (1972), and Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, reh'g den., 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684,......
-
State v. Moore
...Mich.App. 228, 229-30, 263 N.W.2d 40, 40-41 (1977); State v. Corriz, 86 N.M. 246, 247, 522 P.2d 793, 795 (1974); State v. Williams, 11 Or.App. 227, 230, 501 P.2d 328, 330 (1972). This record discloses no basis on which to conclude trial court abused its discretion in determining defendant w......
-
State v. Harris
...engage in such disruptive behavior in the courtroom as to be tantamount to a voluntary departure, as happened in State v. Williams, 11 Or.App. 227, 501 P.2d 328 (1972). This case, however, illustrates how it can be impossible to make a contemporaneous determination that a defendant is volun......
-
Washington's Closed-circuit Testimony Statute: an Exception to the Confrontation Clause to Protect Victims in Child Abuse Prosecutions
...not violated where defendant was removed from trial because his disruptive conduct interfered with courtroom decorum); State v. Williams, 501 P.2d 328 (Or. Ct. App. 1972) (holding that defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated where defendant's chanting disrupted proceedings......