Finley v. State, 5 Div. 107
| Decision Date | 01 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 107 |
| Citation | 295 So.2d 427,52 Ala.App. 574 |
| Parties | Frank James FINLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Richard D. Lane, Auburn, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and George W. Royer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Frank James Finley was convicted in Lee County Circuit Court of carnal knowledge of a female child under twelve or of abuse of such child in the attempt to have carnal knowledge of her and sentenced to fifteen years.
Appellant presented to the trial court a motion for an extensive voir dire, accompanied by a list of the proposed questions to the venire. Alternatively, he moved the court to ask the questions listed or that he be allowed to propound them. The trial judge stated he would only permit counsel to ask questions marked and approved by the court. To this ruling, the appellant excepted.
In appellant's motion for a new trial he insisted the trial court committed reversible error in not permitting defense counsel to inquire of the jury panel the following interrogatories in Exhibit 'A,' of the Motion to Conduct a Fair and Reasonably Extensive Voir Dire:
'52. Have any of you sat on a Grand Jury in this Circuit within the past two years?
'If so: (a) who has sat on the Grand Jury
'53. Have any of you sat on a Grand Jury in the County more than two years ago?
'If so: (a) who
(b) when
Title 31 § 52, Code of Alabama, 1940, Recompiled 1958, gives the parties in civil and criminal cases, the right to examine jurors as to their qualifications, interest, or bias which might affect the trial of the case, and would have the right, under the direction of the court, to examine said jurors as to Any matter that might tend to affect their verdict.
The purpose of this right is to afford the parties information relating to the qualifications of the jurors, so that the right of peremptory challenge selection (i.e. striking) may be exercised advisedly. Smith v. State, 36 Ala.App. 624, 61 So.2d 698.
In the absence of a showing to the contrary, the presumption is always in favor of correct action on the part of the trial judge. Ballard v. State, 236 Ala. 541, 184 So. 260.
The proposed inquiries were important to the peremptory challenge procedure and should have been permitted. Their denial hampered counsel in his exercise of this process and resulted in prejudice to the appellant. Based on these facts, the motion for a new trial should have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Defense Ordinance Corp. v. England
... ... John Newman, former manager of the Alabama State Employment Service in Gadsden, testified he had worked 39 ... Accordingly, appellant's assignments or error 4, 5, 11, and 43 urging us to change our method or review in ... ...
-
Finley v. State
...Atty. Gen., for the State, petitioner. Richard D. Lane, Auburn, for respondent. MADDOX, Justice. The Court of Criminal Appeals, 52 Ala.App. 574, 295 So.2d 427, unanimously reversed the conviction of Frank James Finley for carnal knowledge or abuse in an attempt to have carnal knowledge of a......