Harris v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 339 |
| Citation | 206 So.2d 868,281 Ala. 622 |
| Parties | In re Lea HARRIS v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a most confusing record.
We construe the record to show that Honorable Lea Harris, a practicing attorney of the Montgomery County Bar, was called before the Grand Jury of Montgomery County on November 13, 1967, and was asked the following question: 'Who contacted you to represent Gary Cooper?'
Mr. Harris refused to answer on the ground that the question called for a privileged communication between attorney and client.
On his refusal to answer, Mr. Harris was immediately presented in open court before the presiding judge, who had impaneled the grand jury, and the judge then and there ordered Mr. Harris to answer the question in that it did not call for an answer which constituted a privileged communication. Mr. Harris did not agree with the trial court and stated that he would not answer the question in that he still entertained the view that the question could only be answered by revealing a privileged communication between attorney and client.
The trial court then and there and in open court adjudged Mr. Harris guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to imprisonment in the county jail until he should purge himself of the contempt by complying with the Court's order to answer the question. Mr. Harris did not perfect an appeal from the contempt judgment although, being an attorney, he could have done so under the provisions of Act No. 859, approved September 2, 1965, Acts of Alabama 1965, Vol. 2, p. 1602 ().
Although there was no appeal taken from the contempt judgment, the record before us contains a court reporter's transcription Immediately following the contempt proceedings and on November 13, 1967, a petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County on behalf of Mr. Harris. The writ was duly issued wherein the Sheriff of Montgomery County was 'commanded to have the body of Lea Harris alleged to be detained by you, by whatsoever name the said Lea Harris is called or charged, with the cause of such detention, before me, Richard P. Emmett, on the 14th day of November, 1967, at the Court House at Montgomery, Alabama, at 4:30 p.m. o'clock to do and receive what shall then and there be considered concerning the said Lea Harris.'
of all that occurred in open court in the presence of the trial judge on the occasion when Mr. Harris was adjudged to be in contempt of court.
Although the writ commanded the Sheriff to bring Mr. Harris before Judge Emmett at 4:30 p.m. on November 14, 1967, the record shows that a habeas corpus proceeding was held before Judge Emmett at 4:30 p.m. on November 13, 1967. The record further shows that at the conclusion of that hearing Judge Emmett on November 13, 1967, rendered a judgment wherein he adjudged that Mr. Harris 'is not entitled to his discharge on habeas corpus, and that the writ be discharged and that the said Lea Harris be remanded to the custody of M. S. Butler, as Sheriff of the County of Montgomery, State of Alabama, there to remain until discharged by due process of law.'
As far as we can determine, no appeal was taken from the judgment rendered on November 13, 1967, in the habeas corpus proceeding. Yet the record on which this cause was submitted contains a court reporter's transcription of all that occurred at the habeas corpus hearing on November 13, 1967.
On the next day, November 14, 1967, another petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on behalf of Mr. Harris. A writ of habeas corpus was forthwith issued and served on Sheriff Butler on November 14, 1967, commanding the Sheriff to bring Mr. Harris before Judge Emmett at five o'clock on the afternoon of November 14, 1967.
Apparently there was a habeas corpus hearing before Judge Emmett on November 14, 1967, because the record contains the following judgment entry:
'IN RE: LEA HARRIS
'This matter now coming on to be heard before the undersigned Judge upon the petition of Lea Harris, for a writ of habeas corpus, and upon the return of M. S. Butler, as Sheriff of Montgomery County, Alabama, and the said Lea Harris being present in his own proper person and by counsel, and the State not being represented, the undersigned Judge proceeds to hear the matter; and after hearing the same the undersigned Judge being of the opinion that the said Lea Harris is not unlawfully or illegally restrained of his liberty, it is
'ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the said Lea Harris is not entitled to his discharge on habeas corpus, and that the writ be discharged and that the said Lea Harris be remanded to the custody of M. S. Butler, as Sheriff of the County of Montgomery, State of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. State
...the privilege rests with the client or with the party objecting to the disclosure of the communication. See Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622, 206 So.2d 868 (1968); see, also, Swain v. Terry, 454 So.2d 948 (Ala.1984). The client also has the burden of showing that the admission of the privilege......
-
Connolly v. State
...the relationship of attorney and client as well as other facts demonstrating the claim of privileged information. See Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622, 206 So.2d 868 (1968). The client must also show that the admission of this privileged information into evidence will be prejudicial to the cli......
-
Griffin v. State
...presented and `[a] witness, be he attorney or client, is not entitled to decide the question for himself.' Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622 625, 206 So.2d 868, 871 (1968)." Ex parte DCH Regional Medical Center, 683 So.2d 409, 412 (Ala.1996). Moreover, it has long been the law that "[i]f the [a......
-
Ballard v. State
...determine whether the answer would have divulged a confidential communication between her and her counsel. See Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622, 625, 206 So.2d 868, 871 (Ala.1968). We agree with the State that Ballard's subsequent testimony that she may have told her lawyer about the car-key e......