State v. Puckett

201 N.E.2d 86, 95 Ohio Law. Abs. 67, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 124, 1964 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 277
CourtPaulding County Court of Common Pleas
DecidedSeptember 3, 1964
DocketNo. 2785
StatusPublished

This text of 201 N.E.2d 86 (State v. Puckett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Paulding County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Puckett, 201 N.E.2d 86, 95 Ohio Law. Abs. 67, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 124, 1964 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 277 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1964).

Opinion

Hitchcock, J.

Defendant has filed a motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. He contends that the writ should be granted upon the authority of Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 84 S. Ct., 1758, decided June 22, 1964. In this case a majority of five justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (with four justices dissenting), reversed an Illinois conviction for murder by holding that: where the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into unsolved crime but has begun to focus upon a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, [69]*69the police carry out process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, tbe suspect has requested and been denied opportunity to consult with his lawyer, and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent, the accused has been denied assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment as made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, and no statement elicited by the police during interrogation may be used against him at criminal trial.

Because of the novelty of the cited precedent the court has carefully considered defendant’s application, after hearing testimony and argument in respect thereto, and has examined the precedents without purpose of evasion.

In his application defendant says he “is imprisoned and restrained without any legal authority for the reason that he was denied the right of assistance of counsel at a critical stage in a criminal proceeding, to-wit: preliminary hearing and prior thereto in violation of the due process clause of the 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, whereby the action of the County Court of Paulding County, Ohio, is utterly void.”

The transcript of record from the County Court shows that on Monday, August 3,1964, Edward Rosselet (Police Chief) made affidavit that on August 2, 1964, defendant, in the night season, attempted to maliciously and forcibly enter a specified uninhabited storehouse with intent to steal in violation of Section 2907.10, Revised Code. That a warrant to arrest was issued and returned by the Sheriff, also on August 3, 1964, and that the cause was set for hearing at 7. :30 P. M., this same day.

That the cause was on August 3, 1964, upon application of the defendant, continued to August 5,1964, at 10:00 A. M. Thereupon the County Court set bond at $1,000 cash or $2,000 property. No recognizance being given, defendant was committed to the keeper of the jail on August 3, 1964. On August 5th defendant was arraigned and plead “not guilty.” Thereupon, in open court, witnesses were sworn and examined on behalf of both the state and the defendant. At the conclusion of the testimony, defendant was bound over to the Grand Jury. Being still unable to make bail, he was returned to the jail.

[70]*70The evidence at the hearing in this court (conducted with the reporter, the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and his counsel in attendance) is clear and uncontroverted that the alleged offense occurred in the early morning of August 2, 1964. That the police, having reason to suspect defendant, looked for him but were unable to find him. They did find his automobile which was removed to another place. Some hours later, on Sunday, August 2, 1964, defendant visited the Sheriff to report his missing automobile and was thereupon taken into custody for the police. While defendant was in the jail on August 2 and 3, the Sheriff permitted him to communicate with his wife and wife’s mother and these persons attempted to obtain an attorney for defendant, but were unsuccessful.

That upon arrival in County Court about 7:00 P. M., Monday, August 3, 1964, defendant asked the judge to appoint a “pauper’s attorney” for him. The County Judge was unable to discover any law giving him authority to appoint or to pay counsel in these circumstances. He did continue the case until Wednesday to give defendant further opportunity to secure counsel. Defendant, being unable to procure counsel by 10:00 A. M., Wednesday, August 5, 1964, the court proceeded with the arraignment, entering a plea of ‘ ‘ not guilty, ’ ’ hearing the sworn testimony of the police chief and the defendant, whereupon the court bound defendant over to the Grand Jury.

Defendant testified that from the inception of his incarceration he was permitted to communicate with his wife and mother-in-law and did so; also, that from and after the time he first requested counsel he was not questioned about the alleged offense by anyone from the Police Department or Sheriff’s office. Also, that prior to that time and afterward defendant never admitted having any connection with the alleged offense. Also, the prosecuting attorney, at the hearing stated that he was unaware that enforcement officials had obtained any incriminating admissions of any kind from defendant, which corroborates defendant’s testimony that he never admitted to anyone any connection with the alleged offense.

The transcript of the record from the County Court was filed in this court on August 6, 1964. At defendant’s request, communicated to this court by the Sheriff, this court on August 7, 1964, appointed Douglas W. Brown, Esq., to be counsel for [71]*71defendant. On August 11, 1964, this hearing was held as scheduled at which time aforementioned evidence was adduced and arguments of counsel were heard. At the same time an oral motion to reduce bail was heard and same was reset at $300 cash deposit. Thereupon defendant’s family made this deposit and defendant was released.

In this case, as in Escobedo, the investigation had begun to focus on defendant, he was taken into police custody and subjected to some questioning; and enforcement officials did not warn him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent. Unlike Escobedo, the police failed to elicit from defendant any incriminating statements, never denied him facilities for the purpose of attempting to retain counsel, and never questioned him after he asked the judge of the County Court for appointment of an attorney.

In these circumstances, the court cannot see how defendant has in any way been denied any of his constitutional rights, either under the latest interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of Ohio (see Dean v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St., 193, 187 N. E. (2d), 884 [1963]). Here there is not the slightest attempt by the police, sheriff’s office or the Judge of the County Court, to deny counsel to defendant, or evidence that anything happened to prejudice defendant’s defense at trial should the Grand Jury indict him.

The facts here seem to fall clearly and well within the rule of Crooker v. California, 357 U. S., 433, 78 S. Ct., 1287, 2 L. Ed. (2d), 1448 (1958), which is discussed in the majority opinion in Escobedo, where it was distinguished as not in conflict with the rule announced, in these words: (at 84 S. Ct., 1765).

“. . . In that case the Court merely rejected the absolute rule sought by petitioner, that ‘every state denial of a request to contact counsel (is) an infringement of the constitutional right without regard to the circumstances of the case. Id. 357 U. S., at 440, 78 S. Ct., at 1292. (Emphasis in original.) In its place, the following rule was announced:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Crooker v. California
357 U.S. 433 (Supreme Court, 1958)
Escobedo v. Illinois
378 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 N.E.2d 86, 95 Ohio Law. Abs. 67, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 124, 1964 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-puckett-ohctcomplpauldi-1964.