Legal Opinion

Odom v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 1948PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcGehee, C. J.

The principal question presented for decision on this appeal is whether or not the trial court was required to furnish, or offer to furnish, an attorney to represent the accused Biley Odom upon his trial on the non-capital felony charge of having committed the crime of burglary, for which he was convicted and sentenced to the state penitentiary for a term of three years.

Unless the trial court owed the above mentioned duty to the accused, in the absence of a request for an attorney or showing of inability to employ one, in order to comply with the requirements of the Federal Constitution or…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Betts v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Bute v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  3. Wade v. MayoSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. Eilenbecker v. District Court of Plymouth CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  5. Howard v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1906

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Crapps v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Miller v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Fogle v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Phenix v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API