Tokash v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 29013,29013 |
| Citation | 115 N.E.2d 745,232 Ind. 668 |
| Parties | TOKASH v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James C. Cooper, Public Defender, Rushville, Richard M. Givan, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty, Gen., Carl M. Franceschini, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is a delayed appeal wherein the appellant is represented by the Public Defender of this State. We are of the opinion that the appellant was denied adequate representation by competent counsel in violation of § 13 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Indiana.
The intrinsic record of the trial court is sufficient to reverse this judgment. It discloses that on October 31, 1950, before the regular presiding judge, the State filed an affidavit charging appellant with burglary in the second degree. A bench warrant was ordered, and bond fixed in the penal sum of $10,000. On November 24, 1950, a judge pro tempore of this court, who was later appointed to represent appellant as a pauper, set appellant's arraignment for December 7, 1950. On December 7, 1950, the same judge pro tempore made the following entry:
'Comes now the State of Indiana by its Prosecuting Attorney and comes also the defendant in his own proper person, without counsel, in open court, and the defendant informs the Court that he has no money, property or other means with which to employ counsel.
'This cause is now by the Court continued for further proceedings until further setting.'
On December 29, 1950, the same judge pro tempore acting as the court, set the cause for trial for January 11, 1951. When this trial date was reached, the regular judge had resumed jurisdiction, and the court then appointed as pauper counsel for appellant, the lawyer who had been acting as judge pro tempore. Thereupon, a trial was had and concluded, and the court found appellant guilty as charged and entered judgment thereon.
On February 9, 1951, the appellant, who was then confined in the Indiana State Prison, pro se, filed his motion for new trial. No other entry was made until December 7, 1951, when the regular judge set a hearing on the motion for new trial for December 14, 1951. However, on December 14, 1951, appellant's counsel in the trial court, was again judge pro tempore, and he, acting for the court, continued the hearing on the motion for a new trial. On March 28, 1952, the regular presiding judge was again on the bench, on which date the motion for a new trial was overruled. On June 19, 1952, the regular judge denied appellant's petition for the appointment of counsel to prosecute an appeal and for a transcript at public expense.
Although the Canons of Ethics of the American Bar Association do not have the authority of Indiana statutes or decisions of our courts of review, they are evidence of proper standards of conduct for the legal profession. Hunter v. Troup, 1925, 315 Ill. 293, 146 N.E. 321; 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, page 742, § 23. It is fundamental that one who has been an attorney for a litigant should not thereafter act as judge in any part of the same controversy. The converse is also true, and 'A lawyer should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kizer v. Davis
...profession. In re Kuzman (1975) Ind., 335 N.E.2d 210, 212; Bell et al. v. Conner (1968) 251 Ind. 409, 241 N.E.2d 360; Tokash v. State (1953) 232 Ind. 668, 115 N.E.2d 745. Specifically, the Code operates as the rule of law in disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Court. It delineates t......
-
Stein v. State
...to a party, justice requires that he refuse to hear such cause. State ex rel. Mosshammer v. Allen Sup.Ct., supra; Tukash v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 668, 115 N.E.2d 745; State ex rel. Purcell v. Circuit Court (1950), 228 Ind. 410, 92 N.E.2d 843; State ex rel. Parker v. Vosloh, Judge (1944), 2......
-
Crumpacker, Matter of
...were the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association. In re Kuzman, (1975) Ind., 335 N.E.2d 210, Tokash v. State, (1953) 232 Ind. 668, 115 N.E.2d 745. Accordingly, where it is properly charged, this Court will examine events which allegedly transpired prior to the effectiv......
-
Brown v. State
...of his position, appellant relies upon Glasser v. United States, (1942) 315 U.S. 60, 70 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 and Tokash v. State, (1953) 232 Ind. 668, 115 N.E.2d 745. We think these cases are readily distinguishable. In Glasser, the United States Supreme Court found a violation of the Si......