People v. Smith, 7 N.Y.3d 880 (2006)

A trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to substitute counsel, made just prior to jury selection, is a proper exercise of discretion if the defendant does not establish good cause for substitution.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to substitute counsel, which was made just before jury selection. The Court of Appeals found that although the trial court initially rejected the defendant’s application without inquiry, it later allowed the defendant to voice his concerns about his defense counsel. The court also determined that defense counsel’s comments defending his performance did not create a conflict of interest. The Court further held that the defendant’s argument regarding the court’s preliminary instructions was not preserved for review.

Facts

The defendant, Smith, moved to substitute his counsel just prior to jury selection. The trial court initially denied the motion without inquiry. Subsequently, the court allowed Smith to explain his concerns regarding his defense counsel. Defense counsel made comments to the court defending his performance.

Procedural History

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to substitute counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to substitute counsel, made just prior to jury selection.
2. Whether defense counsel’s comments defending his performance created a conflict of interest requiring the appointment of new counsel.
3. Whether the court erred in defining the elements of the crime during its preliminary instructions.

Holding

1. No, because the defendant did not establish good cause for the substitution.
2. No, because defending one’s performance does not automatically create a conflict of interest.
3. The issue was not preserved for review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motion to substitute counsel. The court noted that while the trial court initially denied the motion without inquiry, it later allowed the defendant to voice his concerns. The Court cited People v. Linares, 2 NY3d 507 (2004), indicating that the timing of the motion (just prior to jury selection) is a relevant factor in assessing whether the denial was an abuse of discretion. The Court also relied on People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199 (1978), stating that a defendant must establish “good cause” for substitution of counsel.

The Court further reasoned that defense counsel’s comments defending his performance did not automatically create a conflict of interest requiring new counsel, citing People v Quintana, 15 AD3d 299 (1st Dept 2005), and People v Silva, 15 AD3d 263 (1st Dept 2005).

Finally, the Court held that the defendant’s argument regarding the court’s preliminary instructions was not preserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to object to the instructions at trial. The Court cited People v. Brown, 7 NY3d 880 (2006) [decided today] on this point.