Request for substitution of counsel; People v McFall; Good cause; Removal of a witness from the prosecution’s witness list due to inability to locate; People v Butsinas; Due diligence; People v Everett; Sufficiency of the evidence for FIP & felony-firearm convictions; Constructive possession; People v Hill; Aiding & abetting; People v Moore

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for substitution of counsel, or in allowing the prosecution to remove a witness it could not locate from its witness list. Further, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s FIP and felony-firearm convictions. He was also convicted of felonious assault, delivery of a controlled substance (less than 50 grams), assault, and unlawful imprisonment. The case arose from his invasion of the home of his daughter (M) and son-in-law (W). The court first concluded that his “general unhappiness with counsel's representation or lack of confidence in his attorney, unsupported by a substantial reason, did not establish good cause.” The trial court appropriately considered that granting the request “would unreasonably disrupt the judicial process” given that the trial date was approaching. As to the removal of W from the prosecution’s witness list, the court noted that “what efforts constitute due diligence may vary from case to case depending upon the facts of each case.” Further, removing a witness from a witness list “presents different considerations than a scenario in which the prosecution seeks to admit the prior testimony of an unavailable witness[.]” It held that the prosecution made sufficiently diligent efforts to produce W, and that defendant was not prejudiced by W’s removal from the list. There was no indication his “testimony would exculpate defendant” and there was “ample evidence” inculpating him in the crimes, including the witness testimony and photos. As to the FIP conviction, the evidence supported that “defendant had constructive possession of the gun and possessed the gun jointly with” another man (J). The evidence also established that J “was in possession of a gun when he entered [M’s] home without her permission and while he and defendant beat” W. It supported “a finding that defendant aided and abetted [J] in carrying or having in his possession a gun while [J] attempted to commit or committed a felony.” Affirmed.