The defendant was charged with two counts of pool selling in violation of § 53-295 of the General Statutes. Upon a trial to the jury, he was found guilty on both counts and has appealed, assigning as error (1) the refusal to allow cocounsel to participаte as trial counsel, (2) the admission of evidence obtained as the result of a claimed invalid and unreasonable search and seizure, (3) the admission into evidence of a photograph of the defendant, and (4) the denial of his motion, as to each count, to set aside the verdict. The jury could reasonably have found from the evidence that the state police, armed with a search warrant for the defendant’s premises and an information naming the defendant and alleging pool sеlling, entered the defendant’s home in Union City on May 13, 1963, and searched the premises. While there, the police officers answеred the telephone and recorded wagers on horse racing from five players. They also secured certain рhysical evidence of pool selling, namely, telephones, an Armstrong daily, a tally sheet, newspapers and sports bulletins. The evidence further indicated that a telephone number listed in the defendant’s name for a telephone found on his premises had been used by two witnesses to telephone in their wagers.
At the trial, the defendant was represented by two attornеys, and on the direct examination of the first state’s witness one attorney raised the objections to the evidence and thе other cross-examined the witness. While the second state’s witness was on the stand, the attorney who had cross-examined the previous witness raised an objection to the direct testimony. At this point, the court ruled that one attorney only would be trial cоunsel and the other attorney could act only as advisory counsel; that is, he was only to confer with the trial counsel and wоuld have no right to be heard on any matter
Both the sixth amendment to the federal constitutiоn and § 9 of article first of the Connecticut constitution give to a defendant the right to be represented by counsel. This constitutiоnal right to counsel has not been limited to a single attorney. “From time immemorial, in this jurisdiction, each party to every causе in the Superior Court has had the privilege of being heard by two counsel . . . .” State v. Nyman,
The trial court was in error in denying the right of cocounsel to examine or cross-examine witnesses and to make objections to evidence offered by the state, since the court was limiting the function of counsel rather thаn insisting, as it could have, on the proper procedure of having one counsel only appear in examination or cross-examination of the same witness or speak on any questioned ruling. The fact that one counsel had objectеd to the testimony of the state’s first witness did not affect the second counsel’s right to object to evidence offered by another state’s witness.
The state claims that the second attorney had no right to be heard, since he had not filed an appеarance with the court. “A court may deal with a party represented by counsel before it even though he has entered no formal appearance.” Hill v. Hill,
Our view of the case makes it unnecessary to consider the remaining assignments of еrror. However, we cannot refrain from noting that the attorney who was denied the right to participate in the trial
There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.
In this opinion Kosicki and Kinmonth, Js., concurred.
Notes
“Sec. 225. examination op witnesses. The counsel who commences the examination of a witness, either in chief or on cross-examination, must alone conduct it; and no associate counsel will be permitted to interrogate him, except by permission of the court.”
“Sec. 230. argument by counsel. Sec. 231.-interlocutory matters. No mоre than one counsel on each side shall be heard on any question of evidence, or upon any interlocutory motion or plea in abatement or to the jurisdiction, without permission of the court.”