 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MORRIS v. STATE2/8/1971
otion to proceed in forma pauperis and for the payment of Lavey's fee, the trial court explained that payment of fees by the state was not allowed when the defendant retained or selected counsel but that if Mr. Lavey wished to withdraw, the court would appoint competent counsel for appellant at the expense of the state. When Mr. Lavey refused to withdraw as counsel for appellant, the trial court denied the application for counsel fees. After a number of motions were filed and overruled by the trial court, Lavey then filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant because of an alleged conflict between the parties he was representing. This motion was overruled. Some few days before the trial and while hearing motions filed by Lavey, Patterson notified the court that he did not want Lavey for his counsel. At that time Lavey was permitted to withdraw as Patterson's counsel. Finally on the day of trial appellant moved to discharge Lavey as his counsel. This motion was denied.
We can find no error of the trial court in refusing to pay counsel employed or retained by the defendant upon a forma pauperis particularly under the record here made. Neither do we find any merit in the alleged error of the trial court in refusing to permit Lavey to withdraw as counsel and in refusing to discharge Lavey as counsel upon defendant's motion. Under the record the trial court could properly have concluded that Lavey's motion was not in good faith and that appellant's motion was nothing more than a ruse for a continuance.
Appellant complains that the trial court erred in evicting him from the court room during the trial and in commenting to the jury about it. On this issue it is shown that after the jury was selected and appellant had told a deputy sheriff that "He was going to pull a Bobby Seales," he created a commotion in the court room by
kicking over a chair and talking to the court in some rather loud language. Thereafter the court in chambers explained to appellant that he had to abide by the ordinary rules of conduct and decency if he wished to remain in the court room during his trial. Upon appellant's refusal to abide by the rules, the court instructed the sheriff to return appellant to jail. Returning to the court room, the judge explained to the jury that they should not consider appellant's conduct and remarks as going to the issue of guilt because his actions and his language were not evidence of guilt. The judge also explained that the trial would proceed in the absence of appellant because appellant had informed the court that he would not abide by the rules of court.
The court did not err in removing appellant from the court room. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, 90 S.Ct. 1057 (1970). Furthermore we can find no error in the trial court's comment to the jurors since they were entitled to some explanation under the circumstances.
The contention that appellant's guilt and punishment should not have been simultaneously submitted to the jury is contrary to the authorities generally. See Bagley v. State, 247 Ark. 113, 444 S.W.2d 567 and Maxwell v. Bishop, (8 Cir. 1968) 398 F.2d 138.
State's Exhibit No. 2 was a knife found just outside the door from which the robbers fled. It is true that the knife was not connected to appellant, but Epps' testimony indicates that it fits the description of one of the knives used. Even if we should conclude that it should not have been introduced because of its immateriality, still the record here demonstrates that its introduction was harmless since the only real issue in the case was one of identity.
Under our law, the prosecution, upon apprehension of appellant as one of the alleged
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|