Court Opinion

ID: 9612807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:11:24.536122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:23.267379
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion by
Justice WINTERSHEIMER.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because Hill has not demonstrated that his participation in the case as co-counsel prejudiced him in any way or influenced the verdict. Any possible error was entirely harmless. RCr 9.24.
The facts in this case show that Hill pled not guilty and initially sought to proceed pro se, however, once counsel was appointed for him, he requested only to serve as co-counsel so that he, rather than his attorney, could engage in direct and cross-examination of some of the witnesses. Hill told the trial judge that he wanted to act as co-counsel because he believed that his appointed counsel would not completely understand “prison life.” The trial judge noted that Hill could communicate with his attorney and ask questions and seek advice during the one-day trial.
The requirement that the trial judge determine whether a criminal defendant’s waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary does not arise when the trial judge has appointed a defense counsel to act as co-counsel or standby counsel. Cf. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Moreover, there is overwhelming evidence against the defendant, and any conceivable error is harmless.
I would affirm the conviction in all respects.
LAMBERT, C.J., and GRAVES, J., join this dissent.