Cutts v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 1907 |
| Citation | 54 Fla. 21,45 So. 491 |
| Parties | CUTTS v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Santa Ross County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.
Sanders Cutts was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
It has been the general practice in the trial courts in this state when a party charged with felony has been brought to the bar for arraignment, to inquire of the accused whether he had counsel to represent him, and if, upon inquiry, it developed that he had no attorney and was unable to employ one, to ask the accused whether he desired one to represent him. If he was unable to employ counsel and signified his desire to be represented by one, then it has been the practice for the trial judge to appoint some attorney to represent the accused. This practice is in accord with the letter and spirit of section 11 of the Bill of Rights and section 3969 of the General Statutes of 1906.
It is the duty of counsel designated by the court to give his professional assistance to an accused person who is unable to employ counsel.
Where the record does not show affirmatively that an accused person of mature age, unable to employ counsel, was denied the benefit of the assistance of one, it must be presumed that the trial judge did his duty and that the accused waived the benefit of counsel.
COUNSEL J. T. Wiggins and H. S. Laird, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error comes here on writ of error from the judgment of the circuit court of Santa Rosa county sentencing him to the death penalty for the murder of one Richard Echels. The following assignment of errors is made here viz.:
(1) The court below erred in not appointing an attorney to represent the plaintiff in error, the said Sanders Cutts, when being tried for felony.
(2) The court erred in not instructing the defendant that if he would make an insolvent affidavit the state would have to summon his witnesses.
(3) The court below erred in refusing to grant a motion for a new trial.
The only assignment argued here is the first.
It has been the general practice in trial courts in this state, when a party charged with felony has been brought to the bar for arraignment, to inquire of the accused whether he had counsel to represent him, and if, upon inquiry, it developed that he had no attorney and was unable to employ one, to ask the accused whether he desired one to represent him. If he signified his desire to be represented by counsel, then it has been the practice for the trial judge to appoint some attorney to represent the accused. This practice is in accord with the letter and spirit of section 11 of the Bill of Rights and section 3969 of the General Statutes of 1906.
In Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (7th Ed.) p. 477, in discussing the right of an accused to counsel, it is said
In the case of Ex parte Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19 So. 652, 32 L. R. A 133, this court held it to be the duty of a court to instruct a witness as to his privilege of not answering questions that would tend to incriminate him, thus protecting him in a privilege given by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Betts v. Brady
...55, 62, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527. See, also, Connecticut General Statutes, Revision of 1930, §§ 2267, 6476. FLORIDA: Cutts v. State, 1907, 54 Fla. 21, 23, 45 So. 491. See Compiled General Laws, 1927, § 8375 (capital crimes). INDIANA: Webb v. Baird, 1854, 6 Ind. 13, 18. See, also, Knox Co......
-
Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson v. Same Weems v. Same 8212 100
...the right to the aid of counsel as fundamental in character. E.g., People v. Napthaly, 105 Cal. 641, 644, 39 P. 29; Cutts v. State, 54 Fla. 21, 23, 45 So. 491; Martin v. State, 51 Ga. 567, 568; Sheppard v. State, 165 Ga. 460, 464, 141 S.E. 196; State v. Moore, 61 Kan. 732, 734, 60 P. State ......
-
Wood v. United States
...Alabama, 1932, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 155, 79 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527; People v. Napthaly, 1895, 105 Cal. 641, 39 P. 29; Cutts v. State, 1907, 54 Fla. 21, 45 So. 491; State v. Moore, 1900, 61 Kan. 732, 60 P. 748; cf. Palko v. Connecticut, 1937, 302 U.S. 319, 324, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 28......
-
State v. Young
...to conduct the defense of an indigent prisoner); see also People v. Goldenson, 76 Cal. 328, 19 P. 161, 168 (1888) ; Cutts v. State, 54 Fla. 21, 45 So. 491, 491 (1907) ; Delk v. State, 99 Ga. 667, 26 S.E. 752, 753 (1896) ; Hendryx v. State, 130 Ind. 265, 29 N.E. 1131, 1132 (1892) ; Carpenter......