Jоhnny Smith was convicted of murder by shooting and killing Ernest Battle with a handgun, and of armed robbery. He was sen *655 tenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment. 1 His co-defendants, Nolton and Simpson, testified for the state that thеy, along with Smith, had made plans to rob the victim, who was a known drug dealer. Nolton (whо pleaded guilty to felony murder) testified that he (Nolton) shot Battle during the robbery аttempt, believing that Battle was reaching for a weapon. Battle’s wallеt was taken.
1. The evidence in this case was sufficient to enable the jury to find that Smith plotted with two others to rob Ernest Battle; that he drove with them to the scenе of the crime and approached the victim, and was present when hе was shot and killed by his co-defendant, and when his wallet was removed from his body. This clearly meets the standard of
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Smith alleges that the trial court impermissibly restricted his cross-examination of Nolton. He contends that Nolton and Simpson were involved in drug-dealing; that they had approached Smith to join; and that his refusal led them to implicate him falsely in the murder of Battle. Nolton denied the existencе of a drug organization, and claimed that he had known Simpson only by reputation prior to the Battle murder. Smith’s counsel cross-examined Nolton as follows:
Q “How did you know Greg Simpson?”
A “From things I heard about him in the . . . community.”
Q “And what had you heard?”
At this point, the court sustained the state’s hearsay objection to this question, for wаnt of a proper foundation. Smith’s counsel did not ask Nolton whether he was familiar with Simpson’s reputation in the community, but told the court, “I want to know what he heаrd, Judge. I want to know how he knew Greg Simpson.” Later in the cross-examination, Nolton testified to some rumors he had heard about Simpson’s involvement in a prior rоbbery. Smith complains that he was prevented from impeaching Niton’s credibility.
In light of the manner in which the cross-examination proceeded, there was no error.
Williams v. State,
3. Smith alleges that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. After conviction, his trial counsel filed a motion for new trial. Smith then obtained a new lawyer, who filed an amendment to the motion for new trial, but did not raise the issue of effective assistance. That is urged for the first time on this appeal.
We have declined to address similar claims, when raised for the first time on appeal, in the following circumstancеs: (a) when appellate counsel failed to file a motion for new triаl,
Simpson v. State,
In eaсh instance, the trial court had not ruled on the issue, nor was there available any testimony from the lawyer who conducted the trial.
In
Castell v. Kemp,
It is a requisite of a sоund system of criminal justice, serving alike the proper ends of defendants and of the public, that any contention concerning the violation of the constitutional right of counsel should be made at the earliest practicablе moment. Thus we remand the case to the trial court for a hearing and appropriate findings concerning the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
4. There being no error, the case must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed and case remanded.
Notes
The offense was committed on November 25,1984. Smith was convictеd on February 4, 1985 and his sentence was amended on June 12,1985. His motion for a new trial wаs filed on February 25,1985, amended on April 16,1985, and denied on June 10,1985. Notice of apрeal was filed on July 10,1985. The transcript was certified on February 20,1985. The appeal was docketed in this court on October 17,1985 and the case was submitted on January 14, 1986.