STATE v. ROBERTSON (2019)

ON SUPERVISORY WRIT TO THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

Writ granted. The order granting defense counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby reversed and the East Baton Rouge Public Defender's Office is reinstated as counsel for defendant. The witness behind the alleged conflict of interest is a defense witness, and as such, is not subject to cross-examination by the defense counsel. Thus, there is no potential or actual conflict of interest. See State v. Carmouche, 508 So.2d 792, 805 (La.1987) and State v. Tart, 93-0772, p. 19 (La. 2/9/96), 672 So.2d 116, 125. (This court has consistently held that a defense attorney required to cross-examine a current or former client on behalf of a current defendant suffers from an actual conflict.) Moreover, the witness was only represented by the East Baton Rouge Public Defender's Office on prior, unrelated matters.

PER CURIAM