State v. Dethman, 2010 MT 268

Dethman was charged with DUI, Assault on a Peace Officer, and Resisting Arrest in Powell County, Montana.
Public Defender Krakowka represented Dethman at arraignment; Dethman later moved to substitute counsel.
District Court denied substitution, allowed Krakowka to remain, and warned Dethman about proceeding pro se.
Dethman fired Krakowka but Krakowka served as standby counsel; voir dire and trial included Krakowka assisting at times.
Dethman testified as a witness; Krakowka conducted his direct examination and assisted during cross-examination as needed.
Dethman was convicted of Assault on a Peace Officer (felony) and Resisting Arrest (misdemeanor); DUI plea remained nolo contendere; sentences run concurrently.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion denying substitution of counsel?	Dethman contends inadequate inquiry into claims against Krakowka.	Dethman argues right to counsel violated by failure to substitute.	No abuse; adequate initial inquiry found, substitution denied.
Did the court err by not including full mens rea for assault on a peace officer in jury instructions?	Dethman challenges jury instruction on mens rea.	Dethman acquiesced to the instruction and waived objection.	No error; instruction upheld and plain error review declined due to acquiescence.

State v. Racz, 339 Mont. 218, 168 P.3d 685 (2007 MT 244) (abuse of discretion standard for substitution of counsel)
State v. Happel, 357 Mont. 390, 240 P.3d 1016 (2010 MT 200) (adequate initial inquiry into claims against counsel)
State v. Gallagher, 288 Mont. 180, 955 P.2d 1371 (1998 MT 70) (substantial conflict analysis in substitution of counsel)
State v. Langford, 267 Mont. 95, 882 P.2d 490 (1994 MT 18) (unequivocal waivers of right to represent oneself)
State v. Colt, 255 Mont. 399, 843 P.2d 747 (1992 MT 27) (considerations for waiver of counsel)
State v. Craig, 274 Mont. 140, 906 P.2d 683 (1995 MT) (policy against dilatory tactics in counsel substitution)
State v. Browning, 2006 MT 190, 333 Mont. 132, 142 P.3d 757 (2006 MT 190) (unequivocal request requirements for proceeding pro se)
State v. Minez, 2004 MT 115, 321 Mont. 148, 89 P.3d 966 (2004 MT 115) (acquiescence defeats right to object to jury instructions)
State v. Swan, 2000 MT 246, 301 Mont. 439, 10 P.3d 102 (2000 MT 246) (right to counsel waviers and self-representation)
State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 915 P.2d 208 (1996 MT) (plain error review limits)