Murray v. State
Decision Date | 10 June 1986 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 567 |
Citation | 494 So.2d 891 |
Parties | Timothy Ray MURRAY, v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Donald W. Stewart and Stuart E. Smith, Anniston, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Martha Gail Ingram, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Timothy Ray Murray was indicted for murder, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced as a habitual offender to life in prison. Three issues are presented on appeal.
Murray argues that the court erred by denying his pre-trial discovery motion. Specifically, he complains of the court's refusal to require the State to disclose (1) statements given to the police by prosecution witnesses and (2) the criminal record of another prosecution witness, Michael White.
Although Rule 18(e), A.R.Crim.P.Temp., provides that "statements made by state witnesses or prospective state witnesses" are not ordinarily discoverable, Murray contends that Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), required production of the statements because they contained exculpatory information. He also maintains that he was entitled to inspect the statements for the purpose of impeaching the State's witnesses on cross-examination.
The trial court did not err in denying production of the statements. The record reflects that, prior to trial, the assistant district attorney told defense counsel there were exculpatory matters in certain statements made to the police by prosecution witnesses and also informed counsel that the same exculpatory information was contained in statements given by the witnesses to defense investigators. Furthermore, the trial court stated that it had possession of all the statements, had reviewed them, and would apprise defense counsel of any inconsistencies between the statements and the subsequent testimony of the witnesses at trial. From the record:
From the record, it is apparent that any exculpatory information in the State's file fell outside the rule of Brady. There simply was no "suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196 (emphasis added). Not only did the prosecution disclose the favorable evidence to defense counsel and inform him that it was the same evidence contained in statements taken by the defense, but he also turned over all of the statements to the trial court. Thus, the circumstances of this case do not satisfy even the first of three requirements for establishing a Brady violation, namely: "(1) The prosecution's suppression of evidence; (2) The favorable character of the suppressed evidence for the defense; [and] (3) The materiality of the suppressed evidence." Knight v. State, 478 So.2d 332, 335 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) (quoting Monroe v. Blackburn, 607 F.2d 148, 150 (5th Cir.1979)).
Under Ex parte Pate, 415 So.2d 1140 (Ala.1981), defense counsel was entitled, upon laying a proper predicate, to have the court conduct an in camera inspection of the statement of any testifying witness in order to determine "(1) whether the statement made by the witness before trial differed in any respects from statements made to the jury during trial, and (2) whether the statement requested was of such a nature that without it the defendant's trial would be fundamentally unfair." Ex parte Pate, 415 So.2d at 1144. Here, the court had possession of all the statements, reviewed them, and stated to defense counsel that he would compare them to the witnesses' trial testimony and order production if there were any inconsistencies. Murray received everything to which he was entitled under Pate.
We have no occasion to decide, in light of Rule 18, A.R.Crim.P.Temp., the propriety of the trial court's failure to require the State to disclose to the defense the criminal record of the witness Michael White. Since the transcript reveals that defense counsel cross-examined White concerning prior convictions, the error, if any, was harmless. A.R.A.P. 45.
On appeal, Murray insists that the consolidation of the trial of his case with that of the co-defendant William Sidney Slaughter, Jr., was improper because (1) the defendants were indicted separately and could not have been joined in a single indictment; (2) Murray was prejudiced in the eyes of the jury; and (3) the court's consolidation order was untimely.
At trial, however, Murray's attorney moved for a severance on the ground that consolidation of his trial with that of the co-defendant made the State unwilling to negotiate a plea bargain agreement with Murray. A specific ground of objection waives all other grounds. Cooper v. State, 474 So.2d 182, 183 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). "It is well settled that all grounds of objection not specified are waived, and that the trial court will not be placed in error on grounds not raised at trial." Blackmon v. State, 449 So.2d 1264, 1266 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).
Prior to trial, Murray's attorney stated his client's willingness to plead guilty to a lesser included offense. The assistant district attorney refused the offer to plea bargain. Murray claims that the prosecutor's refusal to plea bargain with him amounted to a denial of equal protection since the State's unwillingness to bargain with him was based on its inability to plea bargain with the co-defendant, i.e unless both defendants pled guilty, the State would still have to prosecute the murder case. Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 561, 97 S.Ct. 837, 846, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). A prosecutor has no duty to plea bargain, United States v. Pleasant, 730 F.2d 657 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 216 (1984), and a defendant cannot compel the State to accept a guilty plea to a lesser included offense. Cole v. State, 337 So.2d 40, 47 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 337 So.2d 47 (Ala.1976).
A similar claim was rejected in United States v. Bell, 506 F.2d 207, 221-22 (D.C.Cir.1974), where it was observed:
" [Footnotes omitted.]
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State
... ... It is a novel argument that constitutional rights are infringed by trying the defendant rather than accepting his plea of guilty." See also Ex parte Pfalzgraf, 741 So.2d 1118 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), and Murray 908 So.2d 283 v. State, 494 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) ... II ... Smith argues that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to strike for cause prospective juror E.K. on the basis that he indicated during voir dire that he thought the ... ...
-
Henderson v. State
... ... Hinton v. State, 548 So.2d 547, 557 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 56288 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969, 110 S.Ct. 419, 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989); Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891, 893 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). However, as discussed previously, because this is a death case we must determine whether introduction of these records constituted plain error ... The appellant's allegation of error must fail. His telephone records were the ... ...
-
Largin v. State
... ... It is a novel argument that constitutional rights are infringed by trying the defendant rather than accepting his plea of guilty. See also Ex parte Pfalzgraf , 741 So.2d 1118 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), and Murray v. State , 494 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App.1986)." Smith v. State , 908 So.2d 273, 28283 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). It is clear from the record that there was no plea agreement between Largin and the State. The State set out the terms of the plea agreement it had offered, and one of the terms was that ... ...
-
Woods v. State
... ... Some of the state's witnesses are not here." ... The objections raised on appeal were not the objections stated at trial. Specific objections made to the trial court waive all other grounds not specified. Walker v. State, 519 So.2d 598 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) ... ; Blackmon v. State, 449 So.2d 1264 ... ...
-
Preserving the Record for Appeal: Tips and Pitfalls
...Crim. App. 1990).5. Ex parte Frith, 526 So. 2d 880, 882 (Ala. 1987) (citing State v. Holloway, 307 So. 2d 13 (1975)); Murray v. State, 494 So. 2d 891 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)).6. Ex parte Works, 640 So. 2d 1056, 1058 (Ala. 1998) (citing Jennings v. State, 558 So. 2d 540, 541 (Ala. Crim. App. ......