Hill v. State
2014 Miss. LEXIS 88
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Jeffrey Lance Hill was charged with possessing a firearm on Mississippi State University property; first trial hung, second trial resulted in conviction.
- Hill represented himself at both trials with court‑appointed advisory (standby) counsel Stephanie Mallette.
- Police recovered a working Mosin Nagant rifle and 440 rounds from Hill’s apartment; Hill’s defense was he did not know the apartments were on campus.
- A confidential informant initially reported Hill; a police report was later (improperly) redacted and revealed the informant was Hill’s roommate.
- Mallette moved to withdraw after learning the informant was the roommate, citing an ethical conflict; the trial court formally allowed withdrawal but simultaneously appointed her as standby/advisory counsel and later limited her ability to advise on whether to rest (or move for mistrial).
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding the trial court erred by forcing conflicted counsel to remain as advisory counsel and thereby denying Hill effective assistance/self‑representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the trial court violated Hill's Sixth Amendment right by refusing to relieve conflicted court‑appointed counsel and forcing her to serve as advisory counsel | Mallette had an actual conflict after learning the informant was Hill's roommate; keeping her as advisory counsel created divided loyalties and deprived Hill of conflict‑free assistance and a valid choice to proceed pro se | The court may limit disclosure of informant identity; advisory counsel need not be conflict‑free if defendant waives counsel and the informant did not participate in the crime | Reversed: court erred by appointing/retaining conflicted counsel as advisory counsel without ensuring an informed waiver or substitute conflict‑free counsel; this deprived Hill of constitutionally adequate assistance/self‑representation |
| 2) Whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence | Hill argued insufficient proof he knew he was on campus (defense of lack of knowledge) | State pointed to campus housing agreements, signage, university billing, and testimony showing applicability of campus rules | Not reached: court declined to decide because reversal on counsel issue required remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Rubenstein v. State, 941 So.2d 735 (Miss. 2006) (trial court has discretion on counsel withdrawal but limits apply to protect orderly procedure)
- Taylor v. State, 435 So.2d 701 (Miss. 1983) (standards for appointing new counsel and maintaining orderly proceedings)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (limits and presumptions regarding standby/advisory counsel once defendant proceeds pro se)
- Howard v. State, 701 So.2d 274 (Miss. 1997) (advisory counsel must be prepared to assume active role; defendant cannot be encouraged to rely on counsel then denied assistance)
- Littlejohn v. State, 593 So.2d 20 (Miss. 1992) (defendant must knowingly and intelligently waive conflict‑free counsel; court should elicit narrative waiver)
- Kiker v. State, 55 So.3d 1060 (Miss. 2011) (lawyer must be fully loyal to client; recognized right to conflict‑free representation)
- Metcalf v. State, 629 So.2d 558 (Miss. 1993) (balance between right to self‑representation and right to counsel)
- Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832 (Miss. 1983) (confidential informant disclosure not required where informant did not participate or witness the offense)
- Corry v. State, 710 So.2d 853 (Miss. 1998) (trial court within discretion to deny identity disclosure where informant not a participant or eyewitness)
- Esparaza v. State, 595 So.2d 418 (Miss. 1992) (informant tenuously related to offense does not require disclosure)
- Arnett v. State, 532 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1988) (no disclosure required where informant not a participant or eyewitness)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (conflict of interest forfeits effective assistance of counsel)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978) (prejudice presumed where trial court allows conflicting multiple representation)
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1981) (right to conflict‑free counsel is fundamental)