People v. Chavez

*366 CLARK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I would affirm the judgment without modification. I would hold the trial court did not err in “denying the request for the continued appointment of counsel without affording defendant an opportunity to explain what circumstances, if any, might warrant such continued appointment.” (Ante, pp. 347-348) As I recently explained, I would adhere to this court’s holding that “‘there can be no abuse of [the trial court’s] discretion when the court appoints competent counsel who is uncommitted to any position or interest which would conflict with providing an effective defense.’” (Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 800-801 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 ], quoting Drumgo v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 930, 934-935 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 506 P.2d 1007 , 66 A.L.R.3d 984 ].) A fortiori, I conclude defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s action in this regard. I concur in the opinion of the court insofar as it holds a criminal defendant’s state constitutional right to confront witnesses against him is not violated by the admission of prior statements of a witness whom the defendant actually does confront and fully cross-examine at trial. Consistent with my position in In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330, 335-336 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 551 P.2d 23 ], I would not modify the judgment.