2012-M-198       State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Adrian Lamont Patterson, Appellant.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it disqualified the non-indigent criminal defendant’s counsel of choice based on a serious potential conflict of interest arising from the defense attorney’s previous representation of a witness for the State to be called at trial.  Affirmed.

Appellant Adrian Patterson and his codefendant Leroy Paul were indicted in Hennepin County on two counts of first-degree murder, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1), (3) (2010), and two counts of attempted first-degree murder, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.185(a)(1), (3), 609.17 (2010).  For his defense, Patterson retained Eric Newmark as his counsel of choice.  Patterson was scheduled to be tried in a joint trial with codefendant Leroy Paul.  The State moved to disqualify Newmark as Patterson’s counsel based on alleged actual and potential conflicts of interest arising out

of Newmark’s past representation of Paul and three of the State’s prospective witnesses. 

Even though Patterson waived his right to conflict-free counsel with respect to Newmark, the trial court granted the State’s motion on the basis of potential conflicts with two of the State’s prospective witnesses.

After retaining another attorney and, following a jury trial, Patterson was found guilty and convicted of second-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(2) (2010), and drive-by shooting, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1e(b) (2010). 

On appeal to the court of appeals, Patterson claimed that:  (1) his right to counsel of choice was violated when the trial court disqualified Newmark; (2) his right to conflict-free counsel was violated because the attorney who ultimately represented him at trial had a conflict with one of the State’s witnesses; (3) the trial court improperly admitted gang evidence; and (4) he was improperly sentenced.  The court of appeals affirmed in all respects.  We granted review on the sole issue of whether Patterson was deprived of his right to counsel of choice.  We affirm.

Page (Gildea, Paul Anderson, Meyer, Barry Anderson, Dietzen and Stras)

[MURDER]