State v. Merrill

Annotate this Case

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

No. 86-421

State of Vermont Supreme Court

On Appeal From
v. District Court of Vermont
Unit No. 2, Washington Circuit
Bradley D. Merrill
September Term, 1987

Shireen A. Fisher, J.

Jane Woodruff, Washington County Deputy State's Attorney, Barre, for
plaintiff-appellee

Steven B. McLeod, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT: Allen, C.J., and Peck, Dooley and Mahady, JJ., and Barney, C.J.
(Ret.), Specially Assigned

DOOLEY, J. The defendant was convicted of simple assault following a
trial by jury. Both at arraignment and throughout the trial he represented
himself. He appeals his conviction, presenting the issue whether he made a
knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The record below is
insufficient to determine whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent.
Accordingly, the judgment is stricken and the case remanded for the trial
court to consider such post-trial motions as would allow the trial court in
the first instance to determine whether the waiver was knowing and
intelligent.
The trial judge had two discussions with the defendant about
representation. The first took place at arraignment. The trial judge first
asked defendant if he wanted to "talk to the public defender or hire an
attorney." Defendant replied that he did not. He was then asked whether he
wanted to represent himself, to which he answered "Yes, that's correct."
After dealing with whether the defendant had heard his rights read, and
reviewing a copy of the information and affidavit, and his plea of not
guilty, the judge advised him in several interchanges that he might do
better to have the advice of an attorney. First, the judge suggested,
"[I]f I were you, I would consult with counsel. And I'd be happy to give
you some time to talk to Mr. Rubin here or if you'd like to hire counsel
you'll be given an opportunity to do that." The judge also said, "And
before you talk to a police officer or the State it would be probably a good
idea to talk to an attorney about it [be]cause it is a serious offense."
After defendant attempted to begin discussion of his self-defense
defense, the trial judge asked him not to "get into that now," saying:
Because whatever you say now can be used against you
later. But if you have questions about that and whether
you do have a defense and whether the charges are -- are
valid or not, you should talk to a lawyer about that.
And Mr. Rubin is here today if you want to talk to him
[about] it?

Defendant stated "No, I feel I'm -- I'm old enough to represent myself," to
which the judge responded, "I see you are old enough. But I would suggest
to you, sir, that an attorney might have some knowledge that you might not
about what a valid defense would be or wouldn't be," and asked him what he
would like to do at that point. He persisted both in his plea of not guilty
and, in response to the judge's question "Are you going to hire an attorney"
said "No, I'll be pro se." The judge inquired, "You'll be representing
yourself?" and defendant responded "That's correct." He was given the
waiver form to sign, and the rest of the arraignment formalities were
completed.
The second discussion between defendant and the judge about defendant's
representation took place at trial. During defendant's opening statement,
he said," This is kind of hard for me, you know, I don't have a lawyer. I
can't afford to have one, so I have to do this myself." The trial judge
called defendant and the prosecuting attorney to the bench, and told
defendant:
Mr. Merrill, when you were arraigned . . . I explained to you that
you had or might have a right to have a public defender. At that
time, you chose not to apply for one. Now do you, at this point,
want a public defender, because if you can't afford a lawyer, I
will assign one to you?

After continued inquiry yielded Mr. Merrill's statement that he did not want
to "tie up the Court," the trial judge said:
It's not a question of tying up the Court, Mr. Merrill. Your
statement to the jury was inappropriate. Now I'm not going to say
anything because I'm afraid at this point it might prejudice your
case, but I'm quite upset about the statement to . . . the jury
because it is inappropriate. You have a right that was explained
to you, and I'm perfectly willing to let you exercise that right
if you'd like to apply for a public defender, even to the point of
continuing today's proceeding, if that's what you want. Now is it?

Defendant answered, "No," and reaffirmed that he was proceeding pro se and
waiving his right to counsel.
This case presents the state of tension between two constitutional
rights: the right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344
(1963); State v. Hartman, 134 Vt. 64, 65, 349 A.2d 223, 225 (1975), and the
right to proceed without counsel, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806
(1975); State v. O'Connell, 147 Vt. 60, 64, 510 A.2d 167, 169 (1986). The
waiver of the one right may amount to the assertion of the other, putting
the trial court in what one court has called the "new, and unenviable,
position" of having to choose between providing counsel if defendant's
attempted waiver of his constitutional right to counsel is inadequate, and
granting a defendant's request for self-representation if that choice is
made "competently and intelligently." United States v. Bailey, 675 F.2d 1292, 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Neither a defendant's waiver of his right to counsel nor his assertion
of his right to proceed pro se may be presumed from a silent record. While
it is abundantly clear from the record in this case that defendant was
repeatedly offered counsel, and that he expressed his intent to proceed pro
se (FN1), the nature of his understanding of the risks involved, and therefore
whether the decision was made competently and intelligently, is less
apparent from the record.
In order to protect both competing constitutional rights, the better
practice is for the trial court first to conduct sufficient inquiry into the
defendant's experience, motives, and understanding of what he is undertaking
to determine the quality of his purported waiver, State v. Hartman, 134 Vt.
at 66, 349 A.2d at 225, and then to provide a clear explanation of the
adverse consequences of pro se representation. State v. Ahearn, 137 Vt.
253, 262, 403 A.2d 696, 702 (1979). This discussion should appear on the
record so that a reviewing court may determine that the defendant knowingly
accepted the risk. State v. O'Connell, 147 Vt. at 65, 510 A.2d at 170. A
defendant may need to be advised of the available options to protect his
rights to counsel, the full nature of the charges against him, the range of
allowable punishment, and the consequences of proceeding without the aid of
an attorney. State v. Quintin, 143 Vt. 40, 44, 460 A.2d 458, 460-61 (1983);
State v. Ahearn, 137 Vt. at 262, 403 A.2d at 702; State v. Hartman, 134 Vt.
at 66, 349 A.2d at 225.
We are unwilling to accept, as defendant argues and the concurring
opinion endorses, that all information for our review must necessarily
appear in the original trial court record in every case. In a relatively
close case, specific circumstances, such as a defendant's past experience in
representing himself, or pretrial attempts to obtain or to fire counsel, or
even his conduct at trial, may reveal that in-depth inquiry or extensive
advice is not necessary in that particular case to protect the
constitutional rights of the unrepresented defendant. See State v.
O'Connell, 147 Vt. at 65-66, 510 A.2d at 170. In such cases, we must know
not only what the trial judge has told the defendant, but also what the
defendant understands about the consequences of self-representation, so that
it can be determined whether he has chosen intelligently and competently to
proceed pro se. United States v. Kimmel, 672 F.2d 720, 722 (9th Cir.
1982). (FN2) This type of information may or may not be available from the
original trial court record. We are not willing to reverse a conviction of
a defendant who in fact knowingly and intelligently waived the right to
counsel simply because the record does not decisively show his knowledge and
intelligence. It will be necessary in some cases to supplement that record
to properly decide whether there has been a valid waiver of counsel.
In cases where a further record must be developed, the inquiry is
identical to that for waiver of other important rights, such as the waiver
of Miranda rights. See State v. Austin, 1 Vt. L.W. 210, 211 (May 25, 1990);
State v. Stanislaw, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 573 A.2d 286, 293 (1990); State v.
Olson, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 571 A.2d 619, 623 (1989); State v. Malinowski, 148
Vt. 517, 520-23, 536 A.2d 921, 923-25 (1987) (lists earlier Miranda waiver
cases). It is a totality of circumstances approach. See Fare v. Michael
C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 (1979).
This is a relatively close case where further fact-finding can show
whether defendant's waiver was intelligent and competent. The record here,
including the absence of an in-depth inquiry by the trial judge into
defendant's knowledge of the consequences of a waiver, is very close to that
present in Faretta v. California, the leading case on the right of self-
representation. There, the Court characterized the defendant as "literate,
competent, and understanding and ... voluntarily exercising his informed
free will" and found that "Faretta clearly and unequivocally declared to the
trial judge that he wanted to represent himself and did not want counsel."
422 U.S. at 835. The Supreme Court found a waiver of the right to counsel
and a valid assertion of the right to self-representation in that case. Id.
The adjectives used to describe the defendant in Faretta are equally
applicable here. Defendant showed his intelligence and understanding
through his motion to dismiss, his negotiation with the state's attorney and
his argument to the jury. He was at the time of the alleged crime in a
supervisory position with the City of Montpelier. There is no indication
that his appearance pro se was involuntary, except possibly to the extent
that he felt he could not afford a lawyer or was unwilling to spend money on
one. He was very firm in his expressions of his decision to appear pro se,
including confirming that decision in a written waiver. State v. Conn, 152
Vt. 99, 103-05, 565 A.2d 246, 248 (1989).
In order to apply the above procedure in the present case, we remand
for the trial court to hold a hearing to determine the nature of
defendant's understanding regarding his right to counsel and his right to
self-representation at the time of trial. Such a proceeding is appropriate
to the development of the facts necessary to determine if a waiver was
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. United States v. Tompkins, 623 F.2d 824, 829 (2d Cir. 1980); see State v. Walls, 501 A.2d 803, 806 (Me. 1985).
The trial court's findings from this proceeding will inform its discretion
as to whether to strike or vacate the judgment.
Remanded for trial court proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion.
FOR THE COURT:

Associate Justice

FN1. Defendant applied for appointment of counsel on appeal, and was
denied as financially ineligible. His income had been at least as great at
the time of trial. Thus, his only alternative at the time of trial would
have been for him to retain counsel, and he was quite insistent from his
first appearance in court that he refused to do so.

FN2. Other courts have adopted this approach to trial court examination
of the quality of a defendant's waiver. United States v. Hafen, 726 F.2d 21
(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 962 (1984); United States v. Bailey, 675 F.2d 1292 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied 459 U.S. 853 (1982); United States v.
Trapnell, 638 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Tompkins, 623 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1980); and see, e.g., State v. Gethers, 193 Conn. 526, 539, 480 A.2d 435, 443 (1984); State v. Walls, 501 A.2d 803, 805 (Me. 1985);
Commonwealth v. Lee, 394 Mass. 209, 475 N.E.2d 363 (1985). There is, how-
ever, a split among the federal circuit courts on this question. See
McDowell v. United States, 484 U.S. 980 (1987) (White, J., dissenting from
denial of certiorari and urging that the court resolve the conflict among
the circuit courts). We endorse the use of a remand for further fact-
finding only in the relatively close case, such as this one, where the fact-
finding can show whether the assertion of the right to proceed pro se was
intelligent and competent.

________________________________________________________________________________

CONCURRING

No. 86-421

State of Vermont Supreme Court

v. On Appeal From
District Court of Vermont,
Bradley D. Merrill Unit No. 2, Washington Circuit

September Term, 1987

Shireen A. Fisher, J.

Jane Woodruff, Washington County Deputy State's Attorney, Barre, for
plaintiff-appellee

Steven B. McLeod, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT: Allen, C.J., and Peck, Dooley and Mahady, JJ., and Barney, C.J.
(Ret.), Specially Assigned

MAHADY, J., concurring. I concur that this case must be remanded to
the trial court. I would, however, remand for a new trial rather than for a
hearing to determine the nature of defendant's understanding regarding his
right to counsel and his right to self-representation at the time of trial.
As the majority correctly notes, "the record below is insufficient to
determine whether the waiver [of defendant's right to counsel] was knowing
and intelligent." Under such circumstances, there can be no effective
waiver.
The right to counsel "is indispensable to the fair administration of
our adversary system of criminal justice." Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977). Of course, a criminal defendant also has the right of
self-representation, but before a defendant relinquishes his right to an
attorney the defendant must "knowingly and intelligently" waive that right
by a choice "made with eyes open." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835
(1975). We must "indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver"
unless it is shown that a defendant made "an intentional relinquishment or
abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938). When it is in derogation of an important right, as is the
right of counsel, waiver will not be inferred from doubtful conduct. State
v. Quintin, 143 Vt. 40, 43, 460 A.2d 458, 460 (1983).
In effect, the Court today overrules Quintin. There, as here, we noted
the absence of evidence that the defendant's background and experience were
explored. We concluded, "Lacking such evidence, the defendant cannot be
held to have made a knowing and intelligent waiver." Id. 143 Vt. at 44,
400 A.2d at 461. Likewise, the Court effectively overrules In re Huard, 125
Vt. 189, 212 A.2d 640 (1965). There the record below was confusing and
inadequate to support a finding of a waiver of the right to counsel. Id.
at 193-94, 212 A.2d at 644-45.
Never have we remanded such a case in an effort to put Humpty Dumpty
back together again. We trivialize a fundamental constitutional right by
allowing the State to try its case as to the waiver of that right by trial
and error. Where the record is inadequate to establish the waiver of a
constitutional entitlement, there simply is no waiver. Johnson v. Zerbst,
304 U.S. at 465, 469; State v. Quintin, 143 Vt. at 44, 460 A.2d at 461; In
re Huard, 125 Vt. at 194, 212 A.2d at 645. Until today, there was in
Vermont no doubt as to that important principle which is essential to a free
society.
__________________________________
Frank G. Mahady, Associate Justice

________________________________________________________________________________

DISSENTING

No. 86-421

State of Vermont Supreme Court

v. On Appeal From
District Court of Vermont,
Bradley D. Merrill Unit No. 2, Washington Circuit

September Term, 1987

Shireen A. Fisher, J.

Jane Woodruff, Washington County Deputy State's Attorney, Barre, for
plaintiff-appellee

Steven B. McLeod, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT: Allen, C.J., and Peck, Dooley and Mahady, JJ., and Barney, C.J.
(Ret.), Specially Assigned

PECK, J., dissenting. I am unable to agree with the result reached by
the majority. Accordingly, I feel compelled to file this dissent. I would
affirm.
If the record left any doubt as to defendant's intelligence or ability
to understand the proceedings against him, including his right to counsel,
or suggest any confusion on his part, I would be more inclined to concur
with the exhaustive litany which the majority recites as requirements to be
followed by the trial courts in determining whether or not a waiver of
counsel is "knowing and intelligent."
I do not disagree that compliance with the full panoply, as outlined
in the majority opinion may be, as the opinion suggests, "the better
practice," in all cases; nevertheless, it should not be cast in unyielding
stone as a rigid sine qua non. In the absence of such a catechism, the
issue should be resolved from the record on a case-by-case basis.
In my judgment the repeated efforts by the trial court in this case to
protect defendant's right to counsel was more than sufficient. As it is,
the majority has created a trap which snaps shut if a single item of the
litany is omitted regardless of other considerations. It produces at the
very least, automatic grounds for an appeal and at least a remand for
further findings if not a new trial.
A factor not addressed by the majority is the strength of the state's
evidence during the trial. It was persuasive to a degree that the verdict
seems to me inevitable. It is unlikely that an acquittal would result even
if defendant had been represented by an attorney. Any error was harmless.
State v. Begins, 148 Vt. 186, 189-90, 531 A.2d 595, 597 (1987).
Since I am unable to agree with the result, it states the obvious to
say that I am also unable to agree with the concurring opinion. It would
stretch even further the unwarranted result and the consequences thereof
reached by the majority. Given the scope of defendant's grasp of the pro-
ceedings, as disclosed by the record in this case, the steps taken by the
trial judge in protecting his right to counsel should not be called either
"confusing" or "inadequate;" certainly defendant himself exhibited not the
slightest suggestion of confusion. Notwithstanding the court's frequent
attempts to persuade him to obtain counsel, to the extent that the judge
indicated defendant might consult an experienced attorney who was apparently
present in the courtroom, he stubbornly insisted on representing himself.
The issue was not raised until after the fact of the verdict. In effect, he
kept a card in his sleeve as a safeguard against an unfavorable verdict; the
jury found him guilty based on the strong evidence against him, whereupon,
with a triumphant flourish he now produces his ace in the hole.

__________________________________
Louis P. Peck, Associate Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.