# Sherwood v. State

> Indiana Supreme Court · October 1, 1999 · 717 N.E.2d 131

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505660

## Case

- **Full name:** Stephen K. SHERWOOD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 1, 1999
- **Citations:** 717 N.E.2d 131; 1999 Ind. LEXIS 881; 1999 WL 788799
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Selby
- **Judges:** Shepard, Dickson, Sullivan, Selby, Boehm
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505660

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself “because he was denied actual control of the case presented to the jury” when standby counsel presented a theory of defense that was inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of defense
- emphasizing in finding a denial of defendant's right to represent himself that defendant "explicitly objected to the court's order that appointed counsel appear on his behalf and represent him at trial" and that "[t]hroughout the entire trial, [defendant] at no time acquiesced…
- holding that the trial court may not require hybrid representation where a defendant makes a proper request to proceed pro se

## Opinion text

SELBY, J.,
concurring with separate opinion.
I join in the majority opinion but write separately to make a particular observation about pro se litigation. A capital defendant’s request to proceed pro se places the trial judge in a most untenable position. The judge must effectuate the defendant’s right to self-representation as well as the defendant’s right to a fair and meaningful trial. Both of these rights are of constitutional dimension and, indeed, the United States Supreme Court has declared that the right of self-representation is fundamental, holding that, “Like others, prisoners have the constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of their grievances, which includes a reasonable right of access to the courts.” Hudson v. Palmer; 468 U.S. 517, 523 , 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3198 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (citation omitted). I believe that equal access to justice would be better served if our entire judicial system were better equipped to handle pro se litigation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505660. Public record. Not legal advice.