Court Opinion

ID: 9580162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:02:40.7985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:06.060718
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I do not join the court in reversing the conviction on the ground of conflict of interest in the absence of a showing that defendant was in any way prejudiced by reason of his representation by a part-time city attorney. Nothing in the record reveals that defendant was afforded anything less than the undivided loyalty and able assistance of counsel he was entitled to,1 and it is not for us to speculate otherwise.
In addition, the prosecutorial duties of defense counsel were limited to violation of city ordinances,2 whereas defendant was tried for a violation of state law. Hence, there was no conflict with defense counsel’s duties as a city attorney.
The distinct differences in the prosecuto-rial responsibilities of county and city attorneys explain the reason the statutory prohibition against county attorneys acting as defense counsel3 does not include city attorneys.
In any event, in view of the evidence adduced at trial, it is unlikely that a new trial will produce a different result.

. Utah Code Ann. § 77-32-1(4).

. Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-928 (amended in 1991 to permit prosecution of class A misdemeanors in the name of the State of Utah).

.Utah Code Ann. § 17-18-l(9)(a) (Supp.1992) (formerly Utah Code Ann. § 17-18-2(10)(a)).