Court Opinion

ID: 9731509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:48:00.657032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:18.875283
License: Public Domain

PIVARNIK, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion wherein it holds the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to appoint pauper counsel for defendant Moore. There was no showing here that Moore was indigent. In fact, the defendant did not claim to the court nor bring forward any evidence whatever to show that he was an indigent person. He did state to the court that, in spite of the fact that he did have assets and did have income, he still did not have available money to hire an attorney. First, we have only his bare statement of this alleged fact. Second, this is not the standard on which courts are required to appoint pauper counsel for defendants.
*680The trial court told the defendant when he denied his request for appointment of pauper counsel that the court recognized the defendant had an equity in real estate as well as equipment in the well business, and that if he wanted to be represented by counsel he would be required to sell these assets and pay his own attorney. The defendant did not come forward with any figures or facts to show that these assets would not, in fact, pay an attorney to defend him. He apparently opted to keep the assets, rather than dispose of them and use the proceeds in this manner. Probably most people in our society who have real and personal assets and a regular income have difficulty in raising money to meet particular obligations. They must budget carefully and choose priorities to sustain themselves and their families in the midst of difficult economic problems. They should not be required, through the use of their contributions to the public funds, to pay for the obligations of someone who is allowed to retain his own assets rather than liquidate them to meet his own obligations.
The evidence showed the defendant Moore had these assets and was, in fact, able to and did produce the funds to post the twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollar bond so that he could be free pending trial. Further, after his conviction he hired paid counsel to bring this appeal. The law makes this determination discretionary in the trial judge, and I would find he did not abuse his discretion and affirm his judgment.
GIVAN, C. J., concurs.