¶1Concurring Opinion
¶2I reluctantly concur in the result of the majority opinion. The record shows that this man had two other lawyers employed, who withdrew from the case, and *419finally one of the lawyers appeared at the end of the State’s testimony. There is no showing that defendant was a pauper. The record is silent as to whether he was informed in accordance with the rules of this Court that he was entitled to a lawyer at taxpayers’ expense if he could not pay for one.
¶3When a man of intelligence voluntarily decides to be arraigned and go to trial without a lawyer, the constitution undoubtedly gives him that right. I am afraid from the tenor of the majority opinion that it will be interpreted to hold that a trial judge becomes a lawyer for the defendant who has no lawyer. With this I cannot agree. If true, it would be much better for the defendant in most cases to have the judge trying the case as his lawyer than to have some outside attorney defending him. It takes the judge out of the position of being an impartial presiding officer and gives him a duty to assume a partisan view, looking out at all times for the defendant’s interests.
¶4The next step would be to hold that the judge is obligated to introduce certain evidence or subpoena certain witnesses for the defendant where the record appears afterwards to show such would have been helpful to the defendant’s interests.
¶5I therefore concur in the result of this opinion, since I feel that the trial judge should have made a very plain record that the defendant waived his right to an attorney and desired voluntarily to go to trial without an attorney. At the same time I recognize a case cannot be unduly delayed by a defendant out on bond who continually changes attorneys and, when the trial date arrives, states that he still desires an attorney but has not been able to find one, as in the case of Fitzgerald v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 39, 257 N. E. 2d 305, in which I dissented and in which dissent, Givan, J., concurred.
¶6For the reason that the record is not clear in this respect, I concur in the result only of the opinion.
¶7Note.—Reported in 265 N. E. 2d 40.