Summary
The South Carolina Supreme Court held that defense counsel had an actual conflict of interest because he simultaneously represented the defendant and an assistant solicitor involved in the defendant's criminal case. The court ruled that Gregory was not required to demonstrate prejudice, reversed his convictions for committing a lewd act on a child, and remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to relieve defense counsel and grant a continuance when counsel simultaneously represented the defendant and an assistant solicitor involved in the defendant's criminal prosecution.
- Whether an actual conflict of interest requiring reversal exists without a separate showing of prejudice.
Holdings
- Defense counsel had an actual conflict of interest because the simultaneous representation placed counsel in a situation inherently conducive to divided loyalties and involved duties to a party whose interests were adverse to Gregory.
- When an actual conflict of interest exists, the defendant is not required to demonstrate prejudice.
- The denial of the motion to relieve counsel and the continuance was erroneous, requiring reversal of Gregory's judgment and a new trial.
Key quotations
“If a defense attorney owes duties to a party whose interests are adverse to those of the defendant, then an actual conflict exists.” (153)
“In this case, we find Gregory's attorney had an actual conflict because he placed himself in a "situation inherently conducive to divided loyalties" by simultaneously representing Gregory and the assistant solicitor who was handling his criminal case.” (154)
Factual background
Gregory was charged with multiple offenses involving alleged sexual acts with his adopted daughter. His defense was that any inappropriate acts occurred only after she turned eighteen. Defense counsel simultaneously represented Gregory and an Aiken County assistant solicitor who was handling Gregory's criminal case and had participated in negotiations concerning the charges.
Procedural history
Gregory was indicted on multiple child-sex-related charges and was convicted by a jury of two counts of committing a lewd act on a child. On the first day of trial, defense counsel moved to withdraw and requested a continuance based on counsel's simultaneous representation of an assistant solicitor involved in Gregory's criminal case. The trial court denied both motions, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded for a new trial.