Updated on November 16, 2024
Addressing Egregious Misconduct: The Kansas Supreme Court holds that criminal defendants can forfeit the right to counsel
State v. Trass, No. 122,713, 2024 WL 4311525 (Kan. Sept. 27, 2024).
Author: Luke Arney, Staff Editor
Issue: Can a criminal defendant forfeit the right to counsel through misconduct as a matter of law?
Answer: Yes, a defendant can forfeit the right to counsel by engaging in egregious misconduct and disruption intended to thwart judicial proceedings.
Facts: The State charged Brennan Trass with first-degree felony murder and criminal possession of a firearm. During the pretrial proceedings, the district court appointed Trass seven different sets of attorneys due to conflicts of interest, lack of trust, and inefficient representation. The court found that Trass had forfeited his right to counsel through misconduct, so it ordered Trass to represent himself with standby counsel. On the last day of trial, Trass refused to participate, and his standby counsel took over. The jury convicted Trass as charged. Trass filed a direct appeal with the Kansas Supreme Court, raising several arguments, including that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Discussion: The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s fact-findings for substantial competent evidence and its legal conclusions based on those facts de novo. The Sixth Amendment, which is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel at critical stages of a proceeding. Criminal defendants may relinquish the right by waiver or forfeiture. The Court held that Trass did not relinquish his right to counsel through waiver, and his conduct did not demonstrate egregious behavior sufficient to permit the district court’s legal conclusion that Trass had forfeited his right to counsel.
The Kansas Supreme Court determined for the first time under Kansas law that a criminal defendant can “forfeit[] the right to counsel without warning or an opportunity to conform conduct to an appropriate standard . . . [through] egregious misconduct or a course of disruption related to counsel with an intent to thwart judicial proceedings.” [1] The Court further explained that forfeiture is an extreme sanction that courts should use as a last resort. The Court remanded the case for a new trial.
Key Authorities: U.S. Const. amend. VI; State v. Jones, 228 P.3d 394 (Kan. 2010); State v. Bentley, 526 P.3d 1060 (Kan. 2023).
[1] State v. Trass, No. 122,713, 2024 WL 4311525, at *11 (Kan. Sept. 27, 2024).
