Opinion ID: 1985147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Substitute Trial Counsel

Text: Voorhees next contends that the district court erred by refusing to grant his request to substitute a new public defender as his trial counsel. Substitute counsel will be appointed `only if exceptional circumstances exist and the demand is timely and reasonably made.' See State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270, 278 (1998) (quoting State v. Vance, 254 N.W.2d 353, 358 (Minn.1977)). Voorhees' reason for requesting the substitution was, I have been belittled, yelled at, in my trauma through this. The district court told Voorhees that the fact that he and his counsel experienced some personal tension during the trial preparation phase did not entitle Voorhees to new counsel. Specifically, the court stated, Sometimes your attorney is going to have to be very blunt and very honest with you and he's going to say things that you're not going to like to hear. But those matters don't go to issues of ability or competence to represent you. We agree with the court's statement and, accordingly, we hold that the court did not err when it refused to substitute Voorhees' trial counsel.