State v. Davis

Summary

The court held that the trial court adequately addressed the defendant's complaints about discovery, investigation, plea advice, and unspecified ethical violations, because those complaints were not substantial enough to require further inquiry or removal of counsel. It held, however, that both trial judges had an affirmative duty to investigate the defendant's clearly raised potential conflict of interest and failed to do so. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel actively represented conflicting interests and whether an actual conflict adversely affected her performance.