Court Opinion

ID: 9703746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:06:32.15869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:51.498116
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Hunter, J.
The only issue in the appellant’s petition for rehearing that was not fully considered and discussed in the original opinion relates to the alleged denial to the accused of his right to counsel at every stage of the proceedings. When the appellant was arrested on December 29, 1966, he was taken from his home to General Hospital before being taken to the police station, in order that the victim “could view him for identification purposes.” The appellant now contends that he was denied a right to counsel when this identification was made at the hospital by the prosecutrix. Recent decisions have indicated that an accused does have a right to counsel at an “identification parade” or “show up.” United States v. Wade (1967), 388 U. S. 218; Gilbert v. California (1967), 388 U. S. 263.
We do not need to determine whether the Wade or Gilbert decisions would apply to the facts of this case as we feel the appellant has waived this objection. (1) In the case at bar, counsel for appellant made no objection to any testimony at the trial relating to his identification by the prosecutrix either at the trial or at the hospital. (2) The only objection made by the appellant in his motion for new trial which even mentions the right to counsel reads as follows;
*324“That the court erred in permitting over defense objections the introduction of a piece of paper that stated that defendant was told of his rights to counsel and silence and which was allegedly signed by the defendant.”
This objection only relates to the introduction into evidence of a “waiver” signed by the appellant and does not even allege that the appellant was actually denied his right to counsel. (3) In the assignment of errors presented to this court on appeal, the only objection made by appellant to the effect that he was denied his right to counsel was that he “was not accorded assistance of legal counsel . . . during the early pre-trial custodial police interrogations”; no mention is made that appellant was denied his right to counsel when the prosecutrix identified him at the hospital. (4) Finally, even the argument in appellant’s brief relating to the denial of counsel deals only with the “early pre-trial custodial interrogation” of appellant and not with his identification at the hospital by the prosecutrix. Applying well settled precedents, the appellant can be deemed to have waived this argument at any one of these four stages of the proceeding by not making a timely objection. White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 193, 125 N. E. 2d 442; Poehler v. State (1924), 194 Ind. 207, 142 N. E. 2d 410; May v. State (1894), 140 Ind. 88, 39 N. E. 701; Steam v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 17, 101 N. E. 2d 67. We do not believe it a mere technicality to require the appellant to expressly and specifically raise this type of objection prior to his petition for rehearing. It would be an extraordinary requirement to compel this court or the trial court to anticipate and decide all the possible questions of law which might occur in a criminal proceeding in the absence of timely objections by the parties specifically raising the issues to be decided. We hold that the appellant in the case at bar has waived any objections he may have had as regards the admissibility of evidence that relates to his identification at the hospital by the prosecutrix whether or not such identification was made in the presence of the appellant’s counsel.
*325In passing, we wish to note and make a brief comment on another of the paragraphs in the appellant’s petition for rehearing. Pursuant to a recent rule change made by this court, oral argument is not granted to an appellant except at the court’s discretion. Rule 2-21, as amended on April 22, 1968. In the case at bar, the appellant contends that the court denied him due process of law by deciding the appeal without oral argument. It should be remembered that the right of appeal itself is not a matter of Constitutional necessity. District of Columbia v. Clawans (1937), 300 U. S. 617. While it is true that, when an appeal is afforded to an accused, certain essentials attach to the appellate procedure, it has never been required that one such essential be oral argument. It has been the experience of this court that oral argument has proved helpful or decisive only when the issues were too complex to be adequately covered in a written brief. In the instant case we feel the briefs adequately and completely articulate the issues involved in this appeal.
Rehearing denied.