State v. Bridgewaters

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals held that a trial court erred by denying Joshua Ryan Bridgewaters’s unequivocal request to represent himself without determining whether his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. The court further held that dilatory conduct does not constitute an implied waiver of the right to self-representation absent a prior warning that such conduct would result in waiver. It vacated Bridgewaters’s convictions for manslaughter and witness tampering and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. Denial of a defendant's explicit request to proceed pro se constitutes error when the court fails to root that denial in a finding that the request was not knowingly and intelligently made.
2. A defendant cannot impliedly waive the right to self-representation through dilatory tactics or other similar misconduct unless the court first warns the defendant that such misconduct will constitute a waiver.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court violated defendant's right to self-representation by denying his request to proceed pro se without determining whether his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent
2. Whether a defendant can impliedly waive the right to self-representation through dilatory tactics without prior warning

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded