Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Peter Kostyshyn’s convictions for aggravated menacing, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and terroristic threatening. The court held that Kostyshyn forfeited his right to appointed counsel through abusive conduct, that the trial judge did not clearly err by failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte, and that the supplemental jury instruction was not an impermissible comment on the evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Kostyshyn forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel through sufficiently egregious abusive conduct toward multiple appointed attorneys.
- Whether the Superior Court clearly erred by failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte.
- Whether the trial court's supplemental instruction clarifying the intent element impermissibly commented on the facts in violation of the Delaware Constitution.
Holdings
- A defendant may forfeit the right to appointed counsel through sufficiently egregious abusive conduct, including abusive conduct toward multiple appointed attorneys and conduct that makes productive representation impossible. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Kostyshyn forfeited that right.
- Due process requires a trial court to inquire sua sponte into a defendant's competence when there is a reason to doubt competence, but the record here did not provide sufficient indicia of incompetence to require a hearing. The Superior Court did not clearly err by failing to order one.
- A supplemental instruction that clarifies an element of an offense does not impermissibly comment on the facts when, viewed with the instructions as a whole and in context, it explains the issue for the jury to decide rather than directing a factual finding. The challenged instruction was permissible.
Key quotations
“If a defendant acts abusively toward appointed counsel, he is at risk of forfeiting his right to have appointed counsel.” (at 420)
“When considering a defendant’s competency, a judge should not consider whether the defendant has the social skills to interact productively with his lawyer. Rather, the judge should consider whether the defendant is able to understand the proceedings.” (at 420-421)
“The judge need not repeat the phrase “you must find that” when offering clarification to written instructions.” (at 423)
Factual background
Kostyshyn threatened William Corrigan with a pickax after Corrigan took out his trash. He was indicted for aggravated menacing, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and terroristic threatening. His appointed counsel and substitute counsel moved to withdraw after Kostyshyn refused to cooperate and engaged in insulting, abusive, and threatening conduct, after which the court found that he had forfeited his right to appointed counsel. Proceeding pro se, Kostyshyn was convicted following a six-day jury trial.
Procedural history
A Superior Court grand jury indicted Kostyshyn on three offenses. After appointed counsel and substitute counsel withdrew because of Kostyshyn's abusive and threatening conduct, the Superior Court found that he had forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel. Kostyshyn proceeded pro se, was convicted on all three counts after a six-day trial, and appealed. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed.