Clarifying Standards for Voluntary Self-Representation and Court-Ordered Interpreter Obligations in Park v. State

Introduction

Park (Chan Sun) v. State is a 2025 decision of the Supreme Court of Nevada affirming a jury conviction for first-degree kidnapping and first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon, victim aged 60 or older. Appellant Chan Sun Park bound his mother with duct tape, confined her in her home, and stabbed her boyfriend, Kevin Hackett. Hackett fled by car, crashed into a neighboring house, and later died of his wounds. Park was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life without parole.

On appeal Park raised numerous claims: that his waiver of counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; that the court should have provided a Korean interpreter for his mother; that evidence obtained in a warrantless entry should have been suppressed; that pretrial bail and house arrest conditions infringed his rights; that the trial court erred in failing to give jury instructions on his causation theory; that discovery violations and delays by the State deprived him of a fair trial; and that cumulative error required reversal. The Supreme Court of Nevada rejected each claim and affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court’s key holdings:

• The district court properly found that Park’s waiver of counsel under Faretta v. California and Nevada rules was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, distinguishing Miles v. State by noting Park was advised of the possibility of consecutive sentences and life without parole.
• No Sixth Amendment violation arose from the court’s failure to appoint a Korean interpreter for Park’s mother, So Kim, because there was no evidence she could not communicate in English.
• The warrantless entry into Park’s home was justified by exigent circumstances—officers had objective reason to believe someone inside needed immediate medical aid—so denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
• Challenges to bail and house arrest became moot after conviction and did not warrant review.
• The trial court did not commit plain error in refusing to sua sponte give a causal-connection jury instruction when Park neither requested nor objected to it at trial.
• The State’s production of hospital and autopsy records, though somewhat delayed, did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct, and Park suffered no prejudice.
• No cumulative error existed to overturn the conviction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975): Right to self-representation requires a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
• Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993): Even defendants lacking legal skill may waive counsel if competent to stand trial.
• Miles v. State, 137 Nev. 747, 500 P.3d 1263 (2021): A waiver is defective if the defendant is not informed of consecutive sentencing and parole ineligibility.
• Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) and Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999): Confrontation Clause principles.
• Hannon v. State, 125 Nev. 142 (2009): Exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.
• Valdez-Jimenez v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 155 (2020): Mootness doctrine for pretrial matters after conviction.
• Dauvis v. State, 130 Nev. 136 (2014) and Sanchez-Dominguez v. State, 130 Nev. 85 (2014): Jury-instruction requirements and plain-error review.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied a deferential standard to the district court’s Faretta colloquy under Hooks v. State, 124 Nev. 48 (2008). It reviewed the transcript in which the judge: (1) explained the right to counsel and risks of self-representation, (2) confirmed Park had been found competent, (3) advised him about sentencing exposure, including consecutive life terms without parole, and (4) warned of pitfalls in jury selection, evidence rules, and trial procedure. Unlike in Miles, Park knew the aggregate maximum, so his waiver was valid.

On the interpreter issue, the Court noted Park never requested a Korean interpreter for his mother, and the record showed she answered questions in clear English once properly phrased. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause does not impose a sua sponte interpreter duty absent evidence the witness lacks proficiency.

Regarding suppression, the Court reviewed the objective-reasonableness test for exigent circumstances. Officers, having been told by an injured Hackett that the attack occurred “a few houses down,” followed a trail of blood to Park’s garage and home. The body-camera evidence (presumed to support the district court) and the scene facts demonstrated a need to render emergency aid, justifying warrantless entry.

Bail and house-arrest claims were deemed moot once Park was convicted and serving sentence. He made no showing to overcome mootness—no ongoing collateral consequence or issue of statewide importance.

On jury instructions, Nevada law requires a defendant to request his own instruction. Park declined to proffer any. The Court held there was no plain, obvious error affecting substantial rights, especially where the medical examiner expressly tied death to the stab wounds.

Finally, discovery delays did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. The State provided records promptly upon receipt, years before trial, and Park suffered no prejudice. With no error found, cumulative-error review was unwarranted.

Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies several points of Nevada criminal procedure:

• District courts must conduct thorough Faretta colloquies, including advising of consecutive sentencing possibilities and parole consequences to satisfy Miles.
• Courts are not required to appoint an interpreter unless a party affirmatively demonstrates the witness cannot comprehend or communicate in English.
• Police may rely on objective indicia—trailed blood, victim statements, bodycam footage—to establish exigent circumstances without a warrant.
• Pretrial challenges to bail or conditions become moot on conviction absent a live controversy or public importance.
• Defendants must timely propose jury instructions to preserve instructional-error claims; plain-error relief remains narrow.
• Trial courts retain discretion to manage discovery timing so long as the State acts in good faith and prejudice is avoided.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Faretta Waiver: A defendant can represent himself only if he knows the risks—like managing evidence rules and jury questioning—just as if he had “eyes open.”
• Confrontation Clause: Guarantees a defendant can cross-examine witnesses; an interpreter is required only if a witness cannot understand the questions.
• Exigent Circumstances: Police may enter without a warrant if there is an immediate need to aid victims or prevent harm.
• Mootness: After conviction, many pretrial issues (e.g., bail conditions) no longer present a live legal dispute and generally cannot be reviewed.
• Plain-Error Review: A court may correct an error not objected to at trial only if the mistake is obvious and affects the defendant’s fundamental right.
• Cumulative Error: Multiple small mistakes can justify reversal only if actual errors occurred and together they undermined trial fairness.

Conclusion

Park v. State affirms the integrity of Nevada’s procedural safeguards: thorough Faretta warnings, sensible interpreter protocols, and careful exigent-circumstances analysis. It underscores that defendants must actively assert rights—by requesting interpreters, filing suppression motions, and proposing jury instructions—to preserve issues on appeal. By clarifying that knowledge of consecutive sentencing and parole ineligibility cures the waiver defect identified in Miles, and by detailing when a court must—or need not—appoint an interpreter, this decision will guide trial courts, defense attorneys, and prosecutors in balancing fair-trial rights with courtroom efficiency.