Opinion ID: 1355586
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Defendant's Right to Insist on Presentation of a Defense.

Text: (5) Defendant maintains the judgment must be reversed because his counsel failed to accede to his desire to put on a defense at the guilt phase. [3] Defendant argues on the basis of the plurality opinion in People v. Frierson (1985) 39 Cal.3d 803 [218 Cal. Rptr. 73, 705 P.2d 396] that both counsel and the trial court interfered with his fundamental right to elect to put on a defense. The plurality opinion in Frierson held that defense counsel does not have authority to refuse to present a defense at the guilt phase of a capital trial in the face of a defendant's openly expressed desire to present a defense at that stage and despite the existence of some credible evidence to support the defense. (39 Cal.3d 803, 812, 817-818.) We did not reach the question whether a defendant has a right to insist on the presentation of a defense which has no credible evidentiary support or which no competent counsel would use, since counsel in Frierson actually presented the evidence defendant wanted used in his defense, but insisted on presenting it at the penalty phase rather than at the guilt phase. ( Id., at p. 815, fn. 3.) We also were not presented with the question of what counsel should do when his client insists on presenting what appears to counsel to be a defense based on perjury, as a false alibi defense. ( Id., at p. 817, fn. 6.) Here, defendant claims he made it clear to the court and counsel that he wanted to put on a defense at the guilt phase. [4] The record shows only that defendant alluded to possible defenses of mistaken identity, conspiracy to frame him, police manufacture of the confession, and alibi. Defendant's reliance on Frierson, supra, 39 Cal.3d 803, is misplaced, since the record does not show that any defense he wished to present had credible evidentiary support. [5] Indeed, it is far from clear on this record that defendant did insist on presenting any particular defense; his comments were mostly directed to the question whether counsel had adequately investigated. With the exception of some impeachment evidence against Otis Clements, who did not testify, defendant did not allege there was a particular piece of evidence he wanted presented that counsel refused to present, or even that he wanted to testify himself. [6] Even in this appeal defendant does not specify what defense it was he wanted to present. Defendant argues the trial court had an obligation to inform him that he had the right to insist on the presentation of a defense. For this proposition he cites only People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118, 125-126, where we said that a trial court may help a defendant to present his complaint against counsel, when the defendant is groping for the proper manner in which to demonstrate the attorney's alleged lack of competence. We certainly did not impose a duty on the court to advise defendants who are represented by counsel that they have the right to put on some defense or particular defenses. Indeed, in Frierson itself we emphasized that in the absence of an explicit indication of a conflict over whether to present a defense, the court has no duty to inquire into the defendant's concurrence with his attorney's actions. ( People v. Frierson, supra, 39 Cal.3d 803, 818, fn. 8.) Defendant's statements before trial, made in the context of a motion for self-representation and consisting almost entirely of an accusation that counsel had failed to investigate or take an interest in the case, did not explicitly indicate there was a conflict over whether to present a defense at all. Nor does the record indicate that at that stage of the proceedings counsel had decided not to put on any defense evidence. To the contrary, as would have been apparent to the court, counsel was still considering putting on a defense case when, after the prosecution case, he obtained a brief continuance to interview two potential defense witnesses. In the absence of an express conflict over whether to put on any defense case, and in the absence of any credible defense evidence, the court had no duty to advise defendant he had the right to insist that counsel put on a defense case at the guilt phase. [7]