Legal Opinion

State v. Choudhry

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided August 26, 2011No. 409A10PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EDMUNDS, Justice.

In this case we consider whether the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry pertaining to defense counsel’s possible conflict of interest arising from his prior representation of a State’s witness. Although the trial court heard argument from the prosecutor and from defense counsel on this issue and made direct inquiry of defendant after placing him under oath, we conclude that, under the facts of this case, the inquiry was insufficient to assure that defendant knowingly intelligently, and voluntarily made his decision regarding counsel’s continued representation. However,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Mickens v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. State v. BraswellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
  2. State v. HymanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  3. State v. GrayCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
  4. State v. HuntCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  5. State v. HymanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017

10 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