 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heacock v. State8/17/2005
court.
Trial began the next day. The jury found Heacock guilty of both charges. Afterwards, Heacock moved for a new trial, claiming that Judge Miller, by refusing to allow him to fire his attorney, had violated Heacock's right of self-representation. He also filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support the drunk driving conviction. On appeal, in lieu of filing a brief, he relies on these pleadings.
Discussion
The district court did not err when it denied Heacock's request for a new trial Heacock claims that he was entitled to a new trial. He argues that when Judge Miller denied Heacock's motion to dismiss his attorney, he precluded Heacock from representing himself at trial.
Below, Heacock's motion to dismiss his attorney was not based on an argument that Heacock wanted to represent himself, but on Heacock's assertion that his attorney was not ready for trial because he had not yet talked to Heacock's witnesses. Although Heacock asked to proceed as co-counsel, and claimed that he had a right to "excuse" his attorney, he did not argue that he wanted to dismiss his attorney so that he could represent himself.
The record shows that Heacock did not raise this argument until he filed his motion for a new trial, which Judge Miller denied without explanation. Because Heacock did not invoke his right of self-representation before trial, Judge Miller did not abuse his discretion when he denied Heacock's motion for a new trial on this ground. (The State, also relying on its trial court pleadings, mistakenly asserts that Heacock "demanded he be allowed to represent himself." But the transcript of the hearing shows that Heacock did not make this demand.)
Moreover, even if Heacock had moved to proceed pro se, the record would have supported a denial of that motion. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to represent himself. But this is a conditional right, and a trial court may deny a request for self-representation "if the defendant is not capable of conducting defense without being unusually disruptive." Here, the record supports Judge Miller's finding that Heacock, when he asked to proceed as co-counsel, could not keep himself under control in the courtroom, or follow basic rules.
There was sufficient evidence to convict Heacock of driving under the influence Heacock next claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his drunk driving conviction. Heacock recognizes that in this type of claim, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. But despite this, he argues that we must weigh the evidence that was favorable to him. He concludes that after weighing the evidence he presented against the State's evidence, we must find that "the evidence does not support a conclusion by a reasonable mind that there was no reasonable doubt as to guilt."
Heacock misapprehends an appellate court's function in deciding this type of claim. The evidence that he argues contradicted the State's evidence was his testimony, and the testimony of his witnesses. This type of evidence does not "afford a basis for questioning the sufficiency of the evidence." The "assessment of witness credibility is exclusively within the province of the jury." Hence, when an appellate court reviews a motion for a judgment of acquittal, the court does not "weigh conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses." Rather, the appellate court, considering "only those facts in the record most favorable to the prosecution and such reasonable inferences as a jury may have drawn from them," determines whether "a fair-minded juror exercising reasonable judg
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|