Opinion ID: 2584196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defense counsel's motion to withdraw was untimely.

Text: Plichta's counsel asserted that Plichta disclosed his beliefs concerning aliens to her shortly after he was arrested on August 1, 2003. The examiners submitted their reports near the end of October 2003. While the reports were replete with Plichta's theories that he was being pursued by certain people, the reports did not mention that Plichta believed those people to be aliens. Plichta's counsel appears to have received copies of the reports, as required by HRS  704-404, see supra note 8, and, thus, was on notice that Plichta did not mention his beliefs regarding aliens to the examiners. Alternatively, Plichta's counsel could have learned of Plichta's omissions simply by asking her client or the examiners about the interviews. Before the January 2005 trial, counsel should have known whether Plichta would likely testify and, at that juncture, should have foreseen that, if Plichta testified regarding his beliefs in aliens in support of his irresponsibility defenseÔÇöhis sole defense at trialÔÇöthen the prosecution would surely attempt to impeach his credibility by showing that he had not disclosed those beliefs to the examiners. Cf. Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) Rule 3.7 cmt. 4 (explaining that the rule, which governs the circumstance in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness, is often applied in the situation where the lawyer [is a necessary] impeaching witness, that is, as the means by which another witness' prior inconsistent statement is to be proved and that, in such a situation, the need for such impeachment should be foreseen not only in preparation for trial but even in advance of the initial witness interview that produced the impeaching material). Consequently, if, for whatever reason, counsel believed that Dr. Stojanovich's testimony would not be sufficient and that her testimony would be necessary to establish the affirmative defense of insanity, for which Plichta had the burden of proof, see Uyesugi, 100 Hawai`i at 456, 60 P.3d at 857, then counsel should have withdrawn before trial. See Blake, 249 A.2d at 234. Indeed, HRPC Rule 3.7 required that Plichta's counsel withdraw before trial if she believed that her testimony was necessary. The rule, entitled Lawyer as Witness, provides in relevant part: (a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness except where: (1) the testimony relates to a uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. In this case, Plichta's counsel's potential testimony related to a contested issue, i.e., Plichta's credibility. Moreover, her testimony did not relate to the nature and value of the legal services rendered in this case and her withdrawal would not have worked a substantial hardship on Plichta, because another attorney from the public defender's office could have represented Plichta at trial, insofar as HRPC 3.7(b) provides that [a] lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9. Neither HRPC Rule 1.7 [15] nor HRPC Rule 1.9 [16] would have been implicated here, because those rules govern conflicts of interest and the record does not reflect that there would have been any such conflict if another attorney from the public defender's office had represented Plichta at trial. Thus, none of the exceptions to HRPC Rule 3.7 apply here. Having reviewed the three medical examiners' reports before the commencement of trial, if defense counsel thought that her testimony regarding Plichta's early statements to her regarding his bizarre ideation was necessary to the optimization of Plichta's affirmative defense of lack of penal responsibility, much less the prior consistency of those statements, then she was ethically bound by HRPC Rule 3.7 not to serve as Plichta's trial counsel in the first place. Counsel apparently made a judgment call that her testimony was not necessary because she appeared at trial and represented to the circuit court and the prosecution during her opening statement that Plichta and Dr. Stojanovich would lay the factual foundation for the irresponsibility defense, including Plichta's beliefs in aliens. Notwithstanding that representation, counsel did not elicit such testimony from Dr. Stojanovich, but instead moved to withdraw after the prosecution had impeached Plichta's testimony, and the case was only one day away from closing arguments. Counsel's near-end-of-trial motion to withdraw simply came too late. See Ahlo, 2 Haw.App. at 469, 634 P.2d at 426-27, supra section II.C; North Carolina v. Brady, 16 N.C.App. 555, 192 S.E.2d 640, 641-42 (1972) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant's attorney to testify at trial to contradict a police officer's testimonyÔÇöwhich differed from his testimony at a preliminary hearingÔÇöbecause if the attorney wished to testify as a witness he should have withdrawn as counsel prior to the trial); Helmick v. Virginia, 38 Va.App. 558, 567 S.E.2d 551, 555 (2002) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel's motion to withdraw to testify for the defendant on an issue of bias, in part because the motion was not timely insofar as counsel was aware of the potential `bias' issue before trial and delayed addressing it until mid-trial). Under the circumstances, we conclude that Plichta has not shown that the circuit court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason by denying the motion to withdraw. See State v. Kido, 109 Hawai`i 458, 461, 128 P.3d 340, 343 (2006) (`The burden of establishing abuse of discretion is on appellant and a strong showing is required to establish it. An abuse of discretion occurs only if the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.' (Quoting State v. Nguyen, 81 Hawai`i 279, 286, 916 P.2d 689, 696 (1996).)). Inasmuch as the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw, the circuit court likewise did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. Accordingly, we hold that the ICA did not gravely err by concluding that the circuit did not err in this matter.