People v. Brown

GRIFFIN, P. J. Defendant-appellant Franklin Brown, Jr. and his codefendant Clemmie Lee Jones were charged with [198]robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. Defendant Brown was also charged with two prior felony convictions: possession of an illegal weapon and grand theft. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and admitted the prior convictions. Both defendants were convicted by a jury of robbery in the first degree. Defendant Brown (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed.

FACTS

On the night of October 20, 1962, the clerk at a market was robbed of $187 at the point of a gun by these defendants, according to witnesses. Appellant, the shorter of the two, was holding the gun. Defendants escaped from the lighted store and fled to the lighted parking area where their ear was parked. A short time later, defendants were brought to the store for identification and they were identified by the clerk there and again at the police station. There were other occupants of the store at the time of the holdup, including several children, who identified these defendants and their car. Defendants produced several witnesses to corroborate their story that they were at a pool hall, about a five-minute drive from the market, at the time of the robbery.

The sole contention on this appeal by appellant is that his attorney was not permitted to cross-examine witnesses, particularly Shirley Singleton, who identified appellant and testified on behalf of the prosecution. Appellant was represented at the trial by his attorney, Edison P. McDaniels, and defendant Jones was represented by his attorney, Richard J. Weller. When James Fewell, the clerk of the market, as the first witness, was examined on direct examination, and after identifying these defendants and explaining in full the particulars of the robbery, his cross-examination was invited by the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Dunn. Mr. McDaniels, attorney for appellant, cross-examined the witness in full and then stated that he had no further questions. The court then asked Mr. Dunn if he had further questions and he proceeded to question the witness further. Thereafter, the court inquired: “Any further questions, Mr. McDaniels? MR. WELLER: I have one —THE COURT: I think one attorney should ask all the questions, Mr. Weller. MR. McDANIELS: I have some more questions, your honor. THE COURT: Do you wish to consult with Mr. Weller? You may ask the questions he has in mind. (Whereupon the counsel for defendants confer off record.) ” Then Mr. McDaniels proceeded with further recross-examination and then stated that he had no fur