Abstract

Arizona has always been among those states which have secured to an indigent defendant a liberally-construed right to be represented by counsel, whether that counsel was provided by the defendant or by a court appointment. In June, 1964, the Arizona Supreme Court added to that right by holding that an indigent defendant accused of a "serious" misdemeanor must be provided counsel by court appointment. The court felt, in the instant case, that a potential penalty of two years imprisonment in the county jail and a fine of one thousand dollars was sufficient to warrant placing this case in the "serious" category, and stated that the trial court must determine whether the misdemeanor charged is a "serious offense" under the particular circumstances, using as determinative factors the "nature of the offense, the extent of the potential penalty, and the complexity of the case." A unanimous Arizona Supreme Court, before stating that it thought the opinion in Gideon v. Wainwright required that counsel be appointed to represent the defendant "under the circumstances of this case, said: "[T]here is no question in our minds but that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of right to counsel is carried full sweep to the states by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The question to be answered is whether the Arizona courts will follow the federal approach that all persons charged with crime must receive assistance of counsel or the "ad hoc" approach indicated by the use of the phrase "under the circumstances of this case."

How to Cite