Baker v. State

Lowe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore of assault with intent to murder, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and a ⁶⁴² number of related charges. His principal contention upon appeal was that the trial court erred in not allowing him to be represented by the attorney of his choice. On February 2, 1976, the appearance of William H. Murphy, Jr., Esquire was filed on behalf of the appellant as privately retained counsel.

On the trial date, May 25, 1976, Edward Smith, Esquire, an associate in Mr. Murphy’s law office, entered his appearance and undertook representation without Mr. Murphy’s presence. After the' jury had been impaneled on the following day, the appellant objected to being represented by anyone except his privately retained counsel, Murphy, and a continuance was requested. The trial court denied the request, and upon appeal appellant argues that this refusal was an abuse of discretion, relying on English v. State, 8 Md. App. 330 . In English , the accused became aware that he would be represented by the son of the attorney he had employed only 15 minutes prior to trial.

The Court found that, under the circumstances, the failure of the trial court to postpone trial to allow the accused to secure counsel of his choice was an abuse of discretion. By contrast, in the case at bar, substantial judicial proceedings were had with appellant represented by Mr. Smith before the former raised any objection. The record shows that Mr. Smith entered his appearance, represented appellant in attempting to have the latter examined by a physician of his own choice, •represented appellant at pretrial hearings on competence, sanity, and