Cain v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance because the court provided multiple warnings of the risks of proceeding pro se, including the possible sentence, juror mistrust of pro se litigants, and possible procedural blunders.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A Fulton County jury found Jimmy Eugene Cain guilty of two counts of child molestation.1 He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Cain filed this appeal, contending that 1 he did not knowingly waive his right to trial counsel during voir dire, and 2 the indictment was fatally defective in that each count contained two crimes. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Cain’s convictions. 1. Cain contends that the court erred by denying his motion for a continuance to obtain counsel to replace his fourth appointed counsel on the first day of trial, thereby forcing him to represent himself during voir dire with inadequate warning about the dangers of self-representation. We discern no reversible error.

A criminal defendant facing imprisonment has a Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel at trial, but the defendant also has a fundamental right to represent himself “when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.”2 “The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.”3 The trial judge has the serious and weighty responsibility of determining whether the accused has intelligently waived his right to counsel.4 Although no magic words or particular questions are required to effect a valid waiver, the record must “reflect that the accused was made aware of the dangers of self-representation and nevertheless made a knowing and intelligent waiver.”5 Furthermore, “it is not required that the trial court probe the defendant’s case and advise the defendant as to legal strategies to ensure that a waiver is intelligently made.”6

Cain v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance because the court provided multiple warnings of the risks of proceeding pro se, including the possible sentence, juror mistrust of pro se litigants, and possible procedural blunders.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report