Council v. State
| Decision Date | 27 September 1996 |
| Citation | 682 So.2d 500 |
| Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Robert Earl COUNCIL v. STATE). 1951521. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals (Coffee Circuit Court, CC-94-254; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-94-1777); Gary L. McAliley, Judge.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Sandra J. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Petitioner.
No brief filed for Respondent.
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
I concur in the order denying certiorari review; however, I feel that the Court of Criminal Appeals has misstated this Court's holding in Ex parte Monk, 557 So.2d 832 (Ala.1989). The law with respect to a capital defendant's right to discovery needs clarification.
In its opinion in this case, Council v. State, 682 So.2d 495 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly cited Monk, but then incorrectly stated that "[t]he Alabama Supreme Court in Monk established an extensive right to discovery in capital cases because of the fact that 'any evidence' may be relevant to mitigating a sentence of death." 682 So.2d at 499. It is incorrect to say that Monk established an "extensive right" to discovery in capital cases. On the contrary, this Court in Monk merely held that a trial judge, in his discretionary authority, may order discovery from the prosecution beyond that required by the constitution state law, or the Rules of Criminal Procedure. In Monk, this Court held that "capital cases by their very nature are sufficiently different from other cases to justify the exercise of judicial authority to order discovery from the prosecution" that goes beyond that required by the constitution or by state law or rule. 557 So.2d at 836 (emphasis added). This principle has been reaffirmed in numerous opinions. See Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474, 520 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886, 112 S.Ct. 242, 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991) (citing Ex parte Monk, 557 So.2d 832, 836-38 (Ala.1989)); accord, Nichols v. State, 624 So.2d 1328, 1333 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Duncan v. State, 575 So.2d 1198, 1202 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), cert. denied, 575 So.2d 1208 (Ala.1991), rev'd on other grounds on return to remand, 612 So.2d 1304 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Smith v. State, [Ms. CR-91-1733, March 8, 1996] --- So.2d ---- (Ala.Crim.App.1996). While a trial court, pursuant to Monk, can, in its discretionary authority, order extensive discovery in a capital case beyond the discovery required by the constitution or by state law or rule, the defendant in a capital case does not have a right to that discovery. Monk made it clear that whether to order discovery beyond that required by the constitution or by state law or rule is discretionary with the trial court. 557 So.2d at 836.
I agree that certiorari review...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waldrop v. State
... ... McKinney v. State, 654 So. 2d 95, 99 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); Johnson v. State, 623 So. 2d 444, 447 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993). It is not the province of this Court to reweigh the evidence. Council v. State, 682 So. 2d 495, 497 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 682 So. 2d 500 (Ala. 1996); Black v. State, 680 So. 2d 942, 944 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). "Conflicting evidence presents a jury issue." Curry v. State, 601 So. 2d 157, 159 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), citing Smith v. State, 583 So. 2d 990 ... ...
-
Mason v. State
... ... the name and address of every individual who has furnished information to the state in the investigation of a crime; rather, "Monk made it clear that whether to order discovery beyond that required by the constitution or by state law or rule is discretionary with the trial court." Council v. State, 682 So.2d 500, 501 (Ala.1996) (Hooper, C.J., concurring specially in denial of certiorari review) ... We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to order the disclosure of the name of the individual who furnished the appellant's name to Investigator ... ...
-
Maples v. State
... ... the name and address of every individual who has furnished information to the state in the investigation of a crime; rather, " Monk made it clear that whether to order discovery beyond that required by the constitution or by state law or rule is discretionary with the trial court." Council v. State, 682 So.2d 500, 501 (Ala.1996) (Hooper, C.J., concurring specially in denial of certiorari review) .'" ... Ex parte Land, [Ms. CR-97-1473, July 2, 1998] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Cr.App.1998) (emphasis original). A trial judge may order more extensive discovery when a ... ...
-
Clark v. State
... ... " Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1080, 122 S.Ct. 1966, 152 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2002). See also Baker v. State, [Ms. CR-95-0292, January 12, 2001] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App.2001); Council v. State, 682 So.2d 495 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 682 So.2d 500 (Ala.1996) ; and Lewis v. State, 659 So.2d 183, 186 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) ... D.N.'s telephone call to the trial court after she had been released for the day indicated that she did not want to serve on the jury. The prosecutor's ... ...