The opinion
Adams, J.
(dissenting). The record of the arraignment of the defendant in this case on November 3, 1961, presents a picture of a defendant in a state of mental confusion. The exchange with regard to. the:right to counsel was as follows:
“The Court: The Court wishes to advise you that you are entitled to be represented by a lawyer and if you are not financially able to employ one and will so advise the court, the court will see that you have a lawyer. Do you understand that?
“Defendant: Yes, sir. But they have impounded all my money.
“The Court: Well, you understand what I just said to you?
“Defendant: Yes.”
Defendant’s response revealed a lack of comprehension of what the judge was attempting to explain to him. It seems obvious that he could not have understood his right to counsel meant counsel for which he would not have to pay. Instead of demanding of defendant if he .understood, the judge should have restated the right to be certain that defendant did understand and should have framed his further questions in such a way as to obtain a clear waiver of the right if such was defendant’s wish.
Even if the judge thought he had sufficiently explained defendant’s right to counsel, his further questions and defendant’s answers clearly show he had not done so:
“The Court: How do you wish to plead, guilty or not guilty?
“Defendant: I am stuck in Ohio, too.
*736 “The Court: Will you just answer my question, please. Do you wish, to plead guilty or not guilty?
“Defendant: I plead guilty I guess, I don’t know.
“The Court: You mean you don’t know. What is it you don’t know?
“Defendant: I don’t understand the laws at all in this State, your Honor. I mean in Ohio where I come from they are entirely different.”
Since I cannot read from this record a knowing' and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, I would affirm the Court of Appeals and grant a new trial.
Souris, J., concurred with Adams, J.
T. M. KavaNAgh, J., concurred in the result.
Dethmers, O. J., did not sit.