Idaho: Severson, represented by conflict free counsel?

Case Name: State of Idaho, Plaintiff, v. Larry M. Severson, defendant
Citation: 215 P. 3d 414-Idaho: Supreme Court, Boise 2009
Facts: Mary and Larry Severson were married and resided in Idaho. Mary passed away from being poisoned. Severson was indicted on one count of first degree murder and one count of poisoning food and/or medicine. The Elmore County Public Defender’s Office was appointed to represent Severson at trial. Severson argued that the appointment of Mr. Franchiseur was a conflict of interest and was operating under conflict of interest because Terry Ratliff, another public defender, who works in the same office of Mr. Franchiseur, had represented Mary’s mother in a civil suit that was directly related to his criminal case. Trial court concluded Mr. Ratliff’s conflict did not preclude Mr. Franchiseur from representing Severson.
Issue: Was Severson denied his right to be represented by conflict free counsel?
Rule of Law: State v. Nath, A trial court may appoint substitute counsel for an indigent defendant upon a showing of good cause. Wood v. Georgia The amendment has been interpreted to include the right to be represented by conflict-free counsel. Smith v. Lockhart In order to satisfy the inquiry requirement, a trial court’s examination of the potential conflict must be thorough and searching and should be conducted on the record.
Under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.10, the court reasoned that because the Elmore County Public Defender’s Office was not a “firm,” Mr. Ratliff’s conflict should not be imputed to Mr. Franchiseur. There is no evidence that Mr. Franchiseur and Mr. Ratliff communicated about Severson’s case or that they shared information. As a precaution the court directed to completely screen Mr. Ratliff from involvement in any activities or information relating to Severson’s case.
The rules define the term, “firm” as “lawyers in a law partnership, Professional Corporation, sole proprietorship or other association authorized to practice law; or lawyers unemployed in a legal services organization or the legal department of a corporation or other organization.”
Application of law to facts: The state of Idaho argues that even if the trial court did not make a proper inquiry into the conflict, Severson’s challenge should fail because he has not established that the conflict adversely affected his lawyer’s performance or otherwise resulted in prejudice.
Severson argues, the district decision should be reversed because the court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the potential conflict; and erred in concluding that the Public Defender’s Office did not make a conflict of interest.
Severson was provided with an opportunity to be heard.
Conclusion: There is no evidence in the record that would support the conclusion that Mr. Ratliff’s conflict was likely to result in prejudice. Severson was not deprived of his right to be represented by conflict-free counsel.
This case teaches us the lawyer’s duty under the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.7 conflict of interest: states “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.” In addition to that Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct judge whether the circumstances demonstrate a potential conflict of interest and a significant likelihood of prejudice.