Title: State v. Lowery

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

111 Ariz. 26 (1974) 523 P.2d 54 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jacqueline LOWERY, Appellant. No. 2884. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. June 4, 1974. Rehearing Denied June 25, 1974. *27 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Frank T. Galati, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Maricopa Co. Public Defender by H. Allen Gerhardt, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of guilty by the court sitting without a jury to the crime of murder in the second degree, and a sentence thereon of not less than ten nor more than twenty years in the Arizona State Prison. The prosecutor also alleged a prior conviction in Texas for murder which prior conviction was admitted by the defendant. The defendant raises only one question on appeal and that is the alleged misconduct of her defense attorney. The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. The testimony indicates that in the early morning of 5 July 1973 the defendant shot Issac Houston twice in the head while he was sitting in a station wagon at 2429 East Broadway, Phoenix, Arizona. One of the investigating officers testified that upon being shown Polaroid pictures of the deceased the defendant stated: At the trial the defendant elected to take the stand in her own behalf. At that time the following transpired on direct examination: The defendant contends on appeal that by moving to withdraw at that time the attorney was indicating to the court that the defendant was lying when she denied shooting the victim and that this could not be erased from the mind of the trier of fact. The record does not reflect the reasons why the defendant's attorney wished to withdraw, but we can surmise that he did not wish to assist the defendant in perjuring herself on the witness stand as the evidence strongly suggested she was doing when she denied under oath that she shot the victim. An attorney is an officer of the court and owes a duty both to the court and to his client. Often these duties are in conflict especially when a defendant takes the stand to testify in his or her own behalf and the attorney, based upon information obtained as a result of the confidential relationship between attorney and client, has reason to suspect that the client is not telling the truth under oath. The attorney's actions, in attempting to withdraw during trial, are not mandated by this court, nor do his actions appear to be common in this jurisdiction. The defendant's attorney apparently tried to follow the Standards for Criminal Justice of the American Bar Association. In the approved Draft, 1971, The Defense Function 7.7, the Standards with Commentary reads: And the Commentary goes on to suggest where the client insists on committing perjury: Trial having started and the defendant having already taken the stand, we believe that once the defendant commenced to testify falsely the better practice would have been for the defendant's attorney to have refrained from further questioning in areas of possible perjury and make a record "in some appropriate manner." Under the facts in the instant case, we find no prejudice. The matter was tried to the court without a jury. The evidence was strong against the defendant. A review of the record before this court indicates ample testimony and evidence, including the defendant's own admissions upon being shown a photograph of the defendant prior to trial, that counsel's conduct played very little, if any, part in the defendant's conviction by the court. Judgment affirmed. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.