Court Opinion

ID: 9578514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:45:56.152802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:12.869627
License: Public Domain

CAMERON, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from that portion of the opinion which states:
“The attempt to withdraw was an unequivocal announcement of the attorney’s disbelief of the truthfulness of his client’s testimony.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in reversing the opinion of this court in State v. Lowery, 111 Ariz. 26, 523 P.2d 54 (1974), based upon a lawyer’s request to withdraw after he ascertained the defendant was committing perjury on the witness stand, stated:
“The question presented, then, is whether what here occurred amounted to such an unequivocal announcement to the fact finder as to deprive the appellant of due process.” Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F.2d 727, 730 (9th Cir. 1978).
A reading of the testimony in the instant case does not lead me to believe that the trial court knew that defense counsel attempted to withdraw because the defendant insisted on perjuring himself. Indeed, as the majority opinion states:
“It is not clear that the trial judge fully grasped the implications of counsel’s statements at this time.”
I would affirm.
HOLOHAN, V. C. J., concurs.