State v. Fredinburg

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 07-10-2013
  • Case #: A145884
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, J. for the Court; Haselton, C.J.; and Ortega, P.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When a party does not show sufficient cause to support a motion to postpone trial and a motion for self-representation would have been disruptive to the orderly conduct of the trial, those motions will be denied.

Defendant appealed conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). At trial, Defendant made motions to postpone the trial date and to substitute counsel before and after the start of trial. The lower court denied Defendant's motions and he was convicted. On appeal, Defendant argued that it was an abuse of discretion to deny his right to the postponement of trial and that it was an error as a matter of law to deny his right to substitute counsel. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant’s motion to postpone trial because the Defendant did not provide sufficient cause for three of his motions and two of the motions were untimely. Additionally, the Court held that it was not an error as a matter of law to deny the Defendant’s right to substitute counsel because it would have been disruptive of the orderly conduct of trial. Affirmed.

Advanced Search