State v. Smith, 247 P.3d 676

Smith was convicted of simple robbery based in part on eyewitness identification and a video showing the robber's face.
Pretrial, Smith sought appointment of new counsel due to an alleged irreconcilable conflict with his attorney, Rumsey, who moved to withdraw.
During in-chambers discussions, Rumsey explained he could not present certain evidence he believed would be false, and Smith urged replacement counsel to offer his desired evidence.
The district court denied the withdrawal/motion to replace counsel, indicating any appointed attorney could not present false evidence and would still cross-examine the State’s witnesses.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by denying replacement counsel; the Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the reversal, remanding for a new trial with new counsel.
The central question is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying new counsel when counsel’s conduct suggested an invasion into the jury’s fact-finding role.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying new counsel	Smith argues there was a justified conflict warranting replacement counsel	Smith contends any replacement would face the same ethical conflict	Yes; abuse of discretion; remand for new counsel
Whether Rumsey’s actions usurped the jury’s fact-finding role	Rumsey refused to present truthful defense because of belief in guilt	No usurpation; defense could not present false or fraudulent evidence	Yes; Rumsey invaded jury’s role, justifying replacement counsel
Whether the conflict could be resolved with different counsel given ethical constraints	A different attorney could present truthful evidence	Any attorney would face the same ethical boundaries	Yes; conflict fundamental, replacement warranted

State v. Crum, 286 Kan. 145, 184 P.3d 222 (2008) (abuse of discretion standard for withdrawal of counsel)
State v. Jasper, 269 Kan. 649, 8 P.3d 708 (2000) (test for abuse of discretion; justifiable dissatisfaction)
State v. McGee, 280 Kan. 890, 126 P.3d 1110 (2006) (conflict in communications as justifiable dissatisfaction)
State v. Banks, 216 Kan. 390, 532 P.2d 1058 (1975) (attorney cannot present false evidence; ethical constraints)
State v. Kemble, 291 Kan. 109, 238 P.3d 251 (2010) (separation of duties in criminal trial; lines not to be crossed)