Holt v. State
Decision Date | 03 October 1978 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 182 |
Citation | 372 So.2d 375 |
Parties | Alfred HOLT v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
On October 3, 1978, a judgment of Reversed and Remanded, without opinion, was issued by this court in this appeal on authority of Ex parte Holt, 372 So.2d 370, Alabama Supreme Court Ms., No. 77-150, August 4, 1978. On October 23, 1978, this court, on its own motion, determined to review the matter on rehearing.
The question of the voluntariness of appellant's statement to police in regard to his involvement in the murder, has been answered in the Supreme Court's opinion reversing the decision of this court. See Ex parte Holt, supra. Holt v. State, 6 Div. 182, Ala.Crim.App. Ms., October 25, 1977, 372 So.2d 364, for pertinent facts and holding.
The question regarding the admissibility of testimony from a witness whose identity has been learned through appellant's alleged involuntary confession remains to be resolved.
In Smith v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 324 F.2d 879, involving the discovery of a witness's identity through an illegally obtained confession, the issue was whether the testimony of that witness should be suppressed. Justice Burger, now Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, found the evidence admissible and commented that:
The Supreme Court of the United States, in Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182, a case factually similar to the case at bar on the point in question, considered the question whether a defendant's involuntary admission, which led to the discovery of evidence incriminating that defendant, caused that evidence to be inadmissible at trial.
In that case, the defendant named a witness whom he stated would prove his claim of alibi, after stating to police that he understood his constitutional rights and did not want an attorney. Because the defendant was not advised that, as an indigent, he was entitled to appointed counsel, the trial court excluded his own statements taken during the interrogation. However, the lower court did not exclude the testimony of the witness, which testimony discredited the defendant's defense of alibi.
The Supreme Court held that, although the accused's statement was not obtained under circumstances comporting with the "Miranda Rule," the use of a witness at trial whose identity was discovered as a result of such statement was not violative of the Fifth, Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments.
There the Supreme Court, referring to the use of such testimony, made the following comment:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carroll v. State
...§ 11.4(h) and (i) (2d ed. 1987); 2 W. Ringel, Searches and Seizures; Arrests and Confessions § 30.3 (1991). The case of Holt v. State, 372 So.2d 375 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 377 (Ala.1979), cited by the appellee, should be read and applied with We do reject the appellant's arg......
- Harrell v. State
-
Ex parte Holt
...377 372 So.2d 377 Ex parte Alfred HOLT. 78-533. Supreme Court of Alabama. June 29, 1979. Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 372 So.2d 375. MADDOX, WRIT DENIED. TORBERT, C. J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur. ...