Demmon v. State, 3 Div. 61
| Decision Date | 02 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 61 |
| Citation | 248 So.2d 147,46 Ala.App. 652 |
| Parties | Garld DEMMON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Pierce, Duncan, Hill & Russell, Kansas City, Mo., Gatewood Walden, Montgomery, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Charles H. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Selling marijuana: sentence fifteen years.
The jury were chosen and then without consent either of the accused or of his counsel, were allowed to separate overnight.
The next morning defense counsel objected to the trial going on because certain of the jurors were reading newspapers. In his motion counsel stated that there was a report of the conviction on the day before of a co-indictee of the defendant. The motion was denied without a hearing.
Montgomery County having more than 140,000 people in the 1960 census, was at the time of trial within the mandatory purview of Act 384, approved July 8, 1943. See Nelson v. State, 253 Ala. 246, 43 So.2d 892.
When a jury is allowed to separate during a trial a presumption of prejudice arises. Christison v. State, 39 Ala.App. 175, 96 So.2d 701.
Since the court did not give the State any opportunity to rebut this prima facie reversible error we have no alternative but to remand for trial de novo.
All charges tendered in writing by the defendant were given. No exception to that part of the oral charge defining and describing entrapment was taken before the jury retired. Whether or not the defendant was entrapped was, at most, a disputed question of fact and hence strictly on this record a jury question.
We cannot on this record tell that there was a breach of the rule in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, or Powell v. Wiman, 5 Cir., 287 F.2d 275. Off-hand, other than some proceeding in aid of the issuance of a subpoena for the alleged C.I.D. agent Coulter, who apparently is no longer in Alabama, we see no redress in our State courts to compel him to testify.
For the error pointed out the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State, 1 Div. 123
...jury. Tyson v. State, [361 So.2d 1182 (Ala.Cr.App.1978) ]; Johnson v. State, [291 Ala. 639, 285 So.2d 723 (1973) ]; Demmon v. State, 46 Ala.App. 652, 248 So.2d 147 (1971)." Watson v. State, 439 So.2d 762, at 767 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). See also United States v. Walker, 720 F.2d 1527 (11th Cir.19......
-
Watson v. State
...evidence, the defense of entrapment should be resolved by the jury. Tyson v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, supra; Demmon v. State, 46 Ala.App. 652, 248 So.2d 147 (1971). There was ample testimony indicating appellant's predisposition to commit the crime charged, and the jury's verdict was......
-
Pitts v. State
...259 Ala. 464, 66 So.2d 848; Carroll v. State, 45 Ala.App. 80, 224 So.2d 917, cert. den. 284 Ala. 728, 224 So.2d 920; Demmon v. State, 46 Ala.App. 652, 248 So.2d 147, cert. den. 287 Ala. 730, 248 So.2d 148; Schofield v. State, 45 Ala.App. 191, 227 So.2d 822; Lee v. State, 47 Ala.App. 548, 25......
-
Staggs v. State
...to refuse to give it. There was contradiction in the evidence, and the defense of entrapment was a jury question. Demmon v. State, 46 Ala.App. 652, 248 So.2d 147 (1971).' Evidence shows that the crime was conceived in the minds of the conspirators before any public officer, or anyone acting......