Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Smith

California Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1993No. S029820Published

1Concurrence

BAXTER, J., Concurring.

The majority holds that the test by which a trial court should exercise its discretion to grant a defendant’s motion, made pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44], for appointment of substitute counsel includes two elements. The first looks back to determine if counsel has provided constitutionally adequate representation. If so, the motion should be denied. If not, the court must assess the manner in which counsel’s representation falls short and appoint substitute counsel if it appears to the court that failure to do so will…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. People v. MarsdenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. People v. IbarraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  3. People v. FosselmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  4. People v. HardyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  5. People v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API