33 Cal.App.5th 472
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Morgan Eddy was convicted of first degree murder and a knife-use enhancement for stabbing a victim who earlier fought with him in an apartment. DNA on the knife matched the victim; no DNA matched Eddy. A neighbor and other witnesses saw Eddy exit and strike the victim; a knife was later found under a kitchen table.
- Trial counsel opened arguing factual innocence (pointing to other residents' access to the knife) but in closing conceded that Eddy committed voluntary manslaughter while disputing murder.
- After conviction, Eddy sought new counsel via a Marsden hearing, arguing counsel conceded guilt over his express objection and refused to let him testify; the Marsden motion was denied.
- On appeal the central claim was a Sixth Amendment violation under McCoy v. Louisiana: counsel overrode the defendant’s express objective to maintain innocence by conceding guilt.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the murder conviction and the knife enhancement, concluding McCoy’s rule applied and the concession was structural error requiring reversal and retrial.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Eddy’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to decide the objective of his defense by conceding guilt in closing | McCoy is distinguishable; Eddy did not consistently assert an innocence objective, didn’t object at trial, and did not present an alibi | Counsel conceded guilt over Eddy’s express instruction to maintain innocence; that usurped his autonomy under McCoy | Court held counsel violated McCoy: defendant has an absolute right to insist on an innocence objective and counsel may not concede guilt over that objection; reversal required |
| Whether failure to object at trial or brief acquiescence forfeited the McCoy claim | Eddy’s inconsistent conduct and lack of contemporaneous objection undermine his claim | McCoy violation can be shown by record evidence that defendant’s objective was innocence and counsel disregarded it; contemporaneous in-court objection is not strictly required | Court held contemporaneous objection is not required; the Marsden record established Eddy consistently sought an innocence defense and counsel overrode it |
| Whether McCoy requires defendant to testify or present an alibi to invoke the right | People argued McCoy is narrower (alibi defendant) and counsel’s strategic choice was reasonable given the evidence | Right to choose defense objective is independent of whether defendant testifies or presents a specific alibi; right grounded in autonomy | Court held defendant need not testify or present a formal alibi to invoke McCoy protection |
| Effect on related enhancement (knife-use) when counsel conceded the stabbing | People did not directly brief this, implied enhancement stands if supported by evidence | Enhancement was premised on the conceded stabbing | Court reversed the knife enhancement as well because it rested on the same conceded criminal act |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) (defendant has right to insist counsel not concede guilt; right is structural)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (insufficient-evidence reversal bars retrial under double jeopardy)
- People v. Solomon, 49 Cal.4th 792 (2010) (premeditation and deliberation can form quickly; planning and motive relevant)
- People v. Pearson, 56 Cal.4th 393 (2013) (planning activity, motive, and manner of killing support premeditation)
- People v. Hatch, 22 Cal.4th 260 (2000) (double jeopardy principles regarding retrial after reversal for insufficient evidence)