People v. Hill, 85 N.Y.2d 32 (1995)
When a defendant’s former counsel joins the District Attorney’s office while the defendant’s prosecution is pending, reversal of the conviction is not required unless the defendant demonstrates actual prejudice or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence.
Summary
Hill was convicted of robbery. His former counsel, Vecchione, had joined the District Attorney’s office while Hill’s case was pending. Vecchione had represented Hill in preliminary stages, then reassigned the case upon receiving the job offer. Hill argued this created a conflict of interest requiring reversal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while such situations require scrutiny, reversal is warranted only upon demonstrating actual prejudice or a substantial risk of abused confidence. The Court found no such prejudice or risk here, given the limited scope of Vecchione’s prior representation and his subsequent isolation from Hill’s robbery case within the DA’s office.
Facts
Hill was charged with multiple robberies in one indictment. In separate indictments, he faced charges for burglary and murder, and another robbery. Vecchione represented Hill on all indictments. Vecchione received an employment offer from the Kings County District Attorney’s office. He requested reassignment of Hill’s cases due to the conflict. The court relieved Vecchione in January 1992, and he joined the DA’s office. Vecchione had interviewed Hill, made court appearances, and filed motions. He claimed his work focused on the murder charge.
Procedural History
Hill was convicted of robbery charges. While his direct appeal was pending, Hill filed a CPL 440 motion to vacate the judgment based on Vecchione’s conflict. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding failure to show actual prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed, with one dissenting justice. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and consolidated the appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s conviction must be reversed because his former counsel became employed by the District Attorney’s office while his prosecution was pending, absent a showing of actual prejudice or substantial risk of an abuse of confidence.
Holding
No, because the defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice or a substantial risk of an abused confidence due to his former counsel’s employment with the District Attorney’s office.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court addressed its prior holding in People v. Shinkle, where reversal was required when a Legal Aid director, familiar with the defendant’s case, became Chief Assistant District Attorney. However, the Court clarified that Shinkle doesn’t establish a per se rule. Citing Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, the Court stated a prosecutor shouldn’t be removed unless necessary to protect a defendant from “actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence.” Here, Hill didn’t claim prejudice, and the risk of abuse was insubstantial. Vecchione’s representation was brief and focused on other charges. He worked in unrelated bureaus within the DA’s office, had no contact with Hill’s prosecutors, and didn’t discuss the case. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting client confidences but balanced it against the need for a showing of actual prejudice or a real risk of abuse to warrant reversing a conviction. “To warrant vacatur of the conviction, however, defendant must establish actual prejudice or a substantial risk of an abused confidence even when, as here, the issue arises on direct appeal.”