Ex parte McCall
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | ALMON; HORNSBY |
| Citation | 541 So.2d 1075 |
| Parties | Ex parte Abe McCALL. (In re Abe McCall v. State of Alabama). 87-864. |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1989 |
Page 1075
(In re Abe McCall
v.
State of Alabama).
W. Donald Bolton, Jr. and Thack H. Dyson of Foster, Wills, Bolton & Dyson, Foley, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Martha Gail Ingram, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
ALMON, Justice.
The petitioner, Abe McCall, was convicted of trafficking in marijuana. McCall appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the conviction, without opinion. This Court granted the writ of certiorari.
McCall raises three issues for review: (1) Whether the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motion to dismiss the proceedings based on former jeopardy; (2) Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction for trafficking in marijuana; and (3) Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to allow him, during the presentation of the defense's case in chief, to call a confidential informant as an adverse witness for the purpose of impeaching his credibility.
The first issue raised by McCall concerns the trial court's grant of a mistrial. The first trial resulted in a mistrial because of prosecutorial misconduct. The second trial resulted in a mistrial being granted on the motion of the State. The third trial resulted in McCall's conviction. McCall contends that jeopardy attached at the granting of the second mistrial, barring subsequent proceedings.
It is clear that if jeopardy attached at the grant of the second mistrial, the third trial is barred by the prohibition against double jeopardy. Ala. Const. 1901, § 9; 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jeopardy attaches when a mistrial is granted, unless there is manifest necessity for the mistrial. See Arizona v.
Page 1076
Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). The dispositive question, then, is whether there was manifest necessity for the mistrial.Eddie Lee Bradley, acting as a confidential informant, participated in the arrest and indictment of McCall. Although the State listed Bradley as a potential witness, it did not call him to the stand. During the presentation of the State's case, however, Bradley's name was mentioned and the role that he played was discussed.
At the close of the State's evidence, Bradley informed the court that he knew one of the jurors. The juror admitted upon examination by the court that she knew Bradley and that her son had once had a "run-in" with him. She also stated that she had no ill feelings toward him. The juror explained that the reason that she did not respond in the affirmative to the State's inquiry during voir dire as to whether any of the potential jurors knew Bradley was that a man coughed and she did not hear the question.
After the juror was sent out of the courtroom to rejoin the other jurors, Bradley testified. He testified that the juror did know him and that she disliked him. Bradley testified that he had dated the juror's daughter and that she did not like that arrangement.
When court was reconvened the next morning, the prosecutors told the court that it had been brought to their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. State, CR-93-1974
...the high degree of necessity required for a mistrial is present. See, e.g., Woods v. State, 367 So.2d 982 (Ala.1978)." Ex parte McCall, 541 So.2d 1075 (Ala.1989). Obviously, this was a very complex situation and the trial court was in a much better position than this court to evaluate the w......
-
Bird v. State
...the exercise of broad discretion in deciding whether the high degree of necessity required for a mistrial is present." Ex parte McCall, 541 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Ala.1989). We find that the trial judge properly denied the requested mistrial. VII Bird maintains that the evidence is insufficient ......
-
Clancy v. State
...for granting a mistrial should always be afforded great deference." Ex parte Sullivan, 779 So.2d at 1162, citing Ex parte McCall, 541 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Ala.1989). See also, e.g., Woods v. State, 367 So.2d 982, 983-84 (Ala.1978). "This [deference afforded to the trial court] is because the t......
-
Presley v. State
...of the mention of seeds in this case, Ms. Sennett's testimony in this case is substantially similar to her testimony in Ex parte McCall, 541 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Ala.1989), which, with regard to the weight of the marijuana, was found sufficient to support a conviction for "She testified that a......