Court Opinion

ID: 9851760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:19:12.633376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:14.687007
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
In my view, several of the enumerations of error in this case should be considered in their entirety (like instructions to a jury), rather than in isolation.
The rape allegedly occurred on September 16, 1974. Appointed counsel was appointed September 24 and announced ready on the morning of October 8. Shortly thereafter retained counsel was employed, appeared in court, and moved for continuance. Appointed counsel discussed his withdrawal from the case with the court, but the court ruled (without objection) that appointed counsel *713would not be relieved as counsel in the case. The motion for continuance was overruled but was renewed the following day at which time retained counsel (who was representing a juvenile charged as a result of the same event) testified that he had not had time to investigate or prepare. The court designated appointed counsel as leading counsel, to which retained counsel objected. The trial commenced October 10. The state called the juvenile co-defendant as a witness. His attorney (also retained by this defendant) asked that he be advised of his right not to incriminate himself. The juvenile was so advised and declined to testify. The two defense attorneys disagreed on whether to put into evidence the statement given by the juvenile co-defendant, retained counsel offering it and appointed counsel objecting to it on the basis that the defense thereby would lose the right to open and close the argument of counsel.
Like too many cooks, too many lawyers can spoil a trial. We are not here concerned with the rights of lawyers, however, but with the rights of the defendant.
In my view, the court erred in designating appointed counsel as leading counsel without consulting the defendant and over the objection of retained counsel. This error led to further difficulties if not errors.
Two Code sections bear on this subject. Code § 9-609 is relied upon by the majority. It provides: "The leading counsel is he who, at the time of the trial or raising of any issue connected with the causé, is, in the judgment of the court, the counsel upon whom the client relies more than any other.” In my view, where a defendant has an appointed attorney and also retained counsel, the fact that the defendant has retained an attorney raises a strong presumption that he relies more on retained counsel than on appointed counsel.
However, Code § 9-608 is also pertinent here. It provides: "When two or more attorneys, being employed on the same side, dispute about the direction to be given to their cause, and the client is not present, the judge shall hear all the facts and give preference to the leading counsel.” In this case, although the defendant was not present in chambers when leading counsel was designated over the objection of retained counsel, the *714defendant apparently was in the courthouse and was available in any event (he testified in regard to the motion for continuance shortly after the designation of leading counsel).
In a criminal case, where a defendant has appointed and retained counsel, to which no objection is made, and a dispute arises as to who is to be leading counsel, the defendant should be consulted.
Code § 9-610 might also be considered but in my view an appointed attorney is not an "employed” attorney within the meaning of that section.
I recognize that a cunning defendant might obtain a continuance by the late retaining of counsel. There is not even a remote hint in this case that counsel was retained late for the purpose of gaining a continuance. Notwithstanding the possibility that the use of retained counsel is capable of abuse, I believe that the constitutional right to counsel includes the right of the defendant to select leading counsel.
In my view, the court erred in designating appointed counsel as leading counsel without consulting the defendant. After this initial error, further difficulties were inevitable.
I would grant the defendant a new trial, at which such difficulties are unlikely to arise.
I am authorized to state that Justice Gunter and Justice Ingram join me in this dissent.