Court Opinion

ID: 9731129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:34:45.719047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:13.673903
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMSON, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I would sustain the appeal.
In my opinion the Court should not have compelled the defendant to go to trial without a further continuance.
Counsel for the defendant, an indigent, was appointed by the Court at ten o’clock in the morning. Trial was scheduled for two o’clock in the afternoon on the same day. At two o’clock in the words of the Court’s opinion counsel “renewed his request for continuance to permit him ‘to make an independent investigation of the facts, to examine and research the law, to peruse the list of jurors, to confer with (his) client, to consult, and to reflect.’ This motion was denied.”
I reach my conclusion without consideration of the merits of the case. Guilt or innocence is not here in issue. The test is not whether further time for preparation would necessarily have benefited the defendant.
The Court appointed counsel says in substance that he does not know what he could have accomplished for the defendant by a continuance but that he was entitled to have an opportunity to try to do so. In short, he contends that the defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.
The Maine cases cited in the opinion of the Court in my view may be distinguished on the facts from the case before us. In *250State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 78 A.2d 496, prejudice from publicity was the issue. In State v. Wardwell, 158 Me. 307, 310, 183 A.2d 896, 899 the Court said:
“At the hearing on the motion for continuance no mention was made in respect to any inability of the respondent’s counsel to proceed with the trial.”
and in State v. Carll, 161 Me. 210, 214, 210 A.2d 680, 682 in which counsel was appointed five days before trial, the Court said:
“The respondent seeks to raise constitutional issues related to the right to counsel but no such issues are presented on these facts. As already noted, he was at his trial represented by a reputable and experienced attorney who has since become the Attorney General of the State of Maine and who at no time claimed any disadvantage in preparing his case.”