Yazzie

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Aaron Yazzie was convicted of first degree murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151 and 1153 (committed within Indian country). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and now appeals the district court’s denial of a motion for new counsel, the admission of evidence of prior bad acts, and admission of hearsay statements.

Appellant argues that the district court erred in: (1) denying his motion for new counsel when he and his attorney had an irreconcilable conflict that denied appellant the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment; (2) rejecting appellant’s motion in limine to bar evidence of irrelevant prior bad acts; (3) admitting hearsay statements under the medical examination exception.

I.

Defendant Yazzie’s contention on appeal is two-fold: he alleges that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel because of an irreconcilable conflict between himself and his appointed trial counsel; and second, that the district court conducted an inadequate inquiry into his complaint regarding counsel and, therefore, erred in failing to substitute counsel. We apply the same test to assess whether the district court erred in failing to…