Hite v. State
| Decision Date | 25 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 356 |
| Citation | 213 So.2d 229,282 Ala. 497 |
| Parties | William A. HITE v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Barry C. Leavell, Montgomery, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Walter S. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appeal is from a judgment dismissing appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis in the circuit court for want of prosecution after appellant refused to testify in support of his petition.
The petitioner stated that he was given a life sentence for carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years of age while a convict, and alleged that he was threatened, beaten and coerced into making a confession; that he was denied an attorney; that he was taken to trial in prison clothes; that he was denied medical attention; and that the judge who presided at his trial held both the office of judge and jury commissioner, contrary to law.
An attorney was appointed to represent appellant and was present and participated in the hearing when the petition was dismissed. The attorney asked for a continuance on the ground that all the witnesses were not present. The only witnesses absent except Judge Carter were expected to testify that appellant was wearing blue, instead of white, clothes when the offense was committed. This was not an issue on the coram nobis hearing. The District Attorney stated that he would admit that Judge Carter was both judge and a member of the jury commission and that that legal question had already been tried and determined. The trial court denied the motion for continuance. The witnesses were sworn and the following occurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...628 (1966). A continuance because of an absent witness is properly refused where the testimony sought was not material, Hite v. State, 282 Ala. 497, 213 So.2d 229 (1968), or cumulative in substance. Divine, supra. Therefore the denial of the requested continuance was not During the presenta......
-
Godfrey v. State
...will not be disturbed unless there be a clear showing of abuse. Fletcher v. State, 291 Ala. 67, 277 So.2d 882 (1973); Hite v. State, 282 Ala. 497, 213 So.2d 229 (1968); Rogers v. State, 365 So.2d 322 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 334 (Ala.1978). Many times it has been held to be wi......
-
Demos v. State
...of the discretion reposed in the trial court to grant or refuse a continuance. Hannon v. State, 284 Ala. 487, 26 So.2d 90; Hite v. State, 282 Ala. 497, 213 So.2d 229; Pearson v. State, 41 Ala.App. 366, 133 So.2d We find no prejudicial error in the record. The judgment of the trial court sho......
-
Ballard v. State, 1 Div. 129
...on appeal, except in cases where it is shown the court abused its discretion. Knowles v. Blue, 209 Ala. 27, 95 So. 481, Hite v. State, 282 Ala. 497, 213 So.2d 229, Hall v. State, 44 Ala.App. 406, 210 So.2d To warrant a continuance, the courts have agreed: (1) That the expected evidence must......