Page v. State, 29379
| Decision Date | 05 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 29379,29379 |
| Parties | Leslie Alvis PAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Russell S. Armstrong, Evansville, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with assault and battery with intent; tried by jury, and found guilty of the lesser included offense of assault and battery and sentenced accordingly.
The sole question here presented is whether or not the court erred in appointing Robert J. Hayes, an officer of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, to represent the defendant. It is contended by appellant that the court appointed an attorney for him without determining whether or not he was financially able to employ counsel and without advising him of his right to counsel of his own choice, thereby denying him the opportunity of choosing his own counsel.
The certificate of the official reporter of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, which appears in the record as an exhibit to the State's answer to defendant-appellant's motion for a new trial, recites the following proceedings as having occurred on June 20, 1955, the date set for appellant's arraignment:
'Court: How old are you?
'Defendant: Thirty-four.
'Court: You are charged with Assault and Battery with Intent to Murder by Cutting, do you have a lawyer?
'Defendant: Not yet, I haven't.
'Court: Are you going to get one?
'Defendant: I am going to try to get one.
'Mr. Hayes: Can the arraignment be deferred until the 22nd Judge, if that is all right.
'Court: In No. 6586, arraignment is deferred until June 22, 1955.'
Appellant asserts that the only evidence in the record on this issue is his affidavit in support of his motion for a new trial, 'which has not been denied under oath by the appellee herein or directly disputed by any counter-affidavits presented by the State of Indiana.' It is contended that the certificate of the court reporter is not an affidavit within the meaning of Rule 1-15 of this court, hence it could only become a part of the record, via a special bill of exceptions. We do not agree. We believe that the reporter's certificate herein must be considered as an affidavit for the purpose of Rule 1-15, and under such rule it is a part of the record without a bill of exceptions.
We agree with appellant that a defendant cannot be compelled to accept counsel appointed by the court; 1 that an accused should have an opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice; 2 and that where he is financially able to employ counsel, he should not be accorded a defense as a poor person. 3 However, the record here shows that appellant was given an opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice and to state to the court that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. State
...of counsel against his will. Placencia v. State, supra; Gates v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 325, 183 N.E.2d 601; Page v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 628, 137 N.E.2d 405. Similarly, in Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (1942), 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268, Justice Frankfurter acknowle......
-
Harris v. State
...390 N.E.2d 148; Wombles v. State, (1979) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1037; German v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 67, 373 N.E.2d 880. In Page v. State, (1956) 235 Ind. 628, 137 N.E.2d 405, this Court held it was not error for the trial court to compel an accused to accept court appointed counsel when he has......
-
McCollum v. State
...but fails to do so he cannot complain on appeal that he was compelled to go forward with court-appointed counsel. Page v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 628, 137 N.E.2d 405. Appellant had at least five months to hire private counsel but failed to do so until eight days before trial. Moreover, appel......
-
Placencia v. State
...compelled to accept the appointment of counsel against his will. Gates v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 325, 183 N.E.2d 601; Page v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 628, 137 N.E.2d 405; Chandler v. State (1949), 226 Ind. 648, 83 N.E.2d 189. From the foregoing it would follow that the trial court, after hav......