Cammon v. State
| Citation | 578 So.2d 1089 |
| Parties | Michael E. CAMMON v. STATE. CR 89-134. |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1990 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Greg Nicholas of Hale & Nicholas, Cullman, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
AFFIRMED.
The majority affirms without opinion because "this appellant's issues lack legal merit." However, only one issue is raised on appeal, and, in my opinion, that issue warrants, at the very least, the remand of this cause for an evidentiary hearing.
The record shows that defense counsel filed a motion for new trial alleging a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Supporting that motion is the affidavit of R.T., the victim's mother, which states, in substance, that two weeks before trial R.T. informed J.W. Hicks, identified in brief as the district attorney's victim relations officer, Appellant's brief at 3, that the victim had recanted her earlier account of the crime. That affidavit is not contradicted. While the record does not show that the prosecutor had knowledge prior to trial of the existence of this recantation, it appears that he should have.
"[W]here [a] defendant has timely requested the production of exculpatory evidence that is material to his defense and the trial judge has ordered that such evidence be produced, Brady and Rule 18.1, A.R.Crim.P., require that the evidence be produced at a reasonable time before trial." Ex parte Brown, 548 So.2d 993, 995 (Ala.1989).
I would remand this cause for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the alleged nonproduction of exculpatory and impeaching evidence.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Musgrove v. State
...elicited from Dunlap proving she ever told anyone what she now claims Libby Barron said to her at the scene. SeeEx parte Gammon, 578 So. 2d 1089, 1091 (Ala. 1991) (holding that 'Brady does require that the information requested by a criminal defendant be known to the prosecution'). It is al......
-
Russell v. State
...evidence, (2) that the evidence was of a character favorable to his defense, and (3) that the evidence was material. Ex parte Cammon, 578 So.2d 1089, 1091 (Ala. 1991) ; Ex parte Brown, 548 So.2d 993, 994 (Ala. 1989)." Jefferson v. State, 645 So.2d 313, 315 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). Presuming,......
-
Smith v. State
...of the evidence. 'Knowledge of requested information is presumed when the information is in the prosecutor's files....' Ex parte Cammon, 578 So.2d 1089, 1091 (Ala.1991), citing United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). The knowledge of law enforcement agents......
-
Bui v. State
...evidence, (2) that the evidence was of a character favorable to his defense, and (3) that the evidence was material. Ex parte Cammon, 578 So.2d 1089, 1091 (Ala.1991); Hill v. State, 651 So.2d 1128, 1131 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). Here, the appellant failed to offer anything in support of his Brady ......