Opinion ID: 848704
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defendant's waiver was unequivocal

Text: Initially, defendant conditioned his waiver of the right to counsel on the trial court's granting of his request to recall for cross-examination two excused witnesses. A defendant who elects to proceed in propria persona after proceedings are underway, however, is not entitled to retry the case. The decision whether to recall a witness is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. MRE 611(a); People v. Fedderson, 327 Mich. 213, 220, 41 N.W.2d 527 (1950); Potts v. Shepard Marine Constr. Co., 151 Mich.App. 19, 26, 391 N.W.2d 357 (1986). In this case, during the waiver of counsel proceeding, the trial court explicitly informed defendant that he would not be permitted to recall any excused witnesses. The court told him, No, we're not bringing in those other witnesses, we're continuing with the trial. The court had previously and repeatedly asked defendant if he still wished to represent himself given this ruling. Defendant unequivocally answered, Yes, ma'am. We believe the record reflects that the trial court exercised admirable patience in dealing with a defendant who wished to represent himself according to his own rules. The court advised defendant very clearly that he would not be permitted to recall the excused witnesses, regardless of what they had said during their preliminary examination testimony. The dissent may well be correct that defendant was listening without hearing what the court was saying. Post at 610. Defendant's subjective understanding, however, can only be gleaned by reference to what he said on the record. The record shows that after the court ruled that his insistence on being allowed to recall excused witnesses would not be indulged, defendant answered affirmatively that he, nevertheless, wished to invoke his right of self-representation. Defendant's unrealistic hopes of introducing evidence in contravention of the court's explicit ruling do not render invalid defendant's unequivocal invocation of his right to self-representation. Post at 610-611. The Court of Appeals misread the colloquy between the trial court and defendant. The record reveals that defendant was dissatisfied with the trial court's ruling that he could not recall an excused witness. Defendant argued with that ruling by claiming his attorney did not adequately cross-examine the excused witness on the basis of the witness's preliminary examination testimony. Whatever was contained in the preliminary examination transcript, however, was irrelevant at that point because the trial court had already ruled that the witnesses could not be recalled by defendant. The trial court was not required to permit defendant to read transcript testimony when the content was immaterial and the jury was assembled and waiting. Therefore, the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that the trial court erred in refusing to honor defendant's request to read the preliminary examination transcript. The requirement under Anderson that a defendant unequivocally assert his right to waive counsel was therefore satisfied in this case.