Court Opinion

ID: 9595290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:38:16.045401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:52.223914
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
dissenting. Although the court-appointed counsel who appeared for defendant at trial did not note objections and exceptions in the manner required by our Rules, the testimony of *341Barbara C. Byrd, the aunt of the prosecutrix, is so palpably incompetent and, in my opinion, so devastatingly prejudicial, as to necessitate a new trial. Her testimony as to what the prosecutrix told her as to incidents between the prosecutrix and defendant prior to August 14, 1964, does not corroborate the prosecutrix but is in direct conflict with her testimony. Moreover, the impact of this incompetent and prejudicial testimony is emphasized by the court’s review thereof in the charge to the jury. Conceding there is sufficient competent evidence to support a conviction of defendant if a new trial is awarded, our function is to make sure that he has a trial free from prejudicial error.
While I vote for a new trial on the ground stated above, I wish to say that I am in full accord with that portion of the Court’s opinion to the effect that “under the specific facts here appellant’s waiving of a preliminary hearing was not such a ‘critical stage’ of the proceeding as to require the presence of counsel,” and that the failure to supply counsel for such preliminary hearing was not “a deprivation of any constitutional right of appellant.” I approve fully the Court’s excellent review of decided cases and the conclusions reached as to this feature of the case.
Higgins and SHARP, JJ., join in dissenting opinion.