Smith v. State
Decision Date | 20 August 1985 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 68 |
Parties | Timothy Scott SMITH v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
On February 12, 1985 this court, 475 So.2d 631, unanimously, directed that a further hearing be conducted in District Court in Morgan County, Alabama, to determine whether or not the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama in Whisenant A complete return has been filed showing the hearing and the testimony taken at such hearing.
v. State, 466 So.2d 1006 (Ala.1985) was followed in determining the voluntariness of any statement made by Smith at the time of his arrest and interrogation. Pursuant to this court's opinion, the District Court of Morgan County has conducted a full hearing with counsel present and representing the appellant, Timothy Scott Smith.
While this proceeding was being heard in district court the State of Alabama petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for writ of certiorari and on July 19, 1985, the Supreme Court of Alabama quashed the petition as being improvidently granted and returned this cause to this court for an opinion.
The initial order transferring this cause to circuit court for trial as an adult was filed June 23, 1983, with the circuit clerk, and such order reads as follows: (R. 17-17A).
This order fully meets the requirements of § 12-15-34, Code of Alabama 1975. It indicates that the trial court considered the In addition, this order discloses that the trial court found that there was probable cause to believe a crime occurred and the defendant committed it. See Duncan v. State, supra. The evidence at the transfer hearing amply supported the finding of probable cause and there is no contention here to the contrary.
six factors outlined in § 12-15-34(d)(1-6). The Alabama Supreme Court has previously determined that a mere restatement of the factors set out in the statute is sufficient. McKinney v. State, 404 So.2d 639 (Ala.1981); Duncan v. State, 394 So.2d 930 (Ala.1981); Brown v. State, 353 So.2d 1384 (Ala.1977)
The appellant argues the trial court considered hearsay evidence with reference to the offense in question.
This issue has been adversely determined to him by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Gulledge v. State, 419 So.2d 219 (Ala.1982) which opinion indicates that a trial judge may properly allow hearsay testimony in a transfer hearing. The strict rules of evidence do not apply in a juvenile transfer hearing. Gulledge, supra. See also Spellman v. State, 469 So.2d 695 (Ala.Crim.App.1985).
Such transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the child accused of a crime but, rather, such hearing is a probable cause hearing to determine whether the child should be transferred out of the juvenile court for criminal prosecution as an adult. Brown v. State, 353 So.2d 1384 (Ala.1977); Ash v. State, 424 So.2d 1381 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), cert. denied, 424 So.2d 1381 (Ala.1983); Tucker v. State, 426 So.2d 513 (Ala.Crim.App.1982).
Moreover, there is no specific requirement that the six factors mentioned hereinabove need specifically be enumerated in the trial court's order. Mayne v. State, 416 So.2d 741 (Ala.1982).
However, pursuant to § 12-15-34(f), the transfer order must contain proof that each of these factors was considered by the court when rendering its decision. McKinney v. State, 404 So.2d 639 (Ala.1981); Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1339 (Ala.1984).
The appellant contends that the requirements of Whisenant v. State, 1985, 466 So.2d 1006 (Ala.1985) and the Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Rule 11(A)(4) were not here followed in that proper warnings as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and the above requirements of Rule 11(A) were not here properly established.
As herein mentioned a full hearing was conducted in district court squarely on this issue. The order of the district court is contained in the supplemental transcript as filed in this court which is dated May 25, 1985 and reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
D.M.M. v. State
...an adult.' W.M. v. State, 607 So.2d 1303, 1304-05 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). See also Ex parte W.T.K., 586 So.2d 850 (Ala.1991); Smith v. State, 475 So.2d 633 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). With respect to a finding of probable cause, the Alabama Supreme Court held in Duncan v. State, 394 So.2d 930 " 'Since th......
-
J.M.V. v. State
...R.L.S. v. State, 619 So.2d 940, 941 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). See also Ex parte W.T.K., 586 So.2d 850, 851 (Ala.1991); Smith v. State, 475 So.2d 633, 635 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). "Since the purpose of a hearing of this type is not to determine guilt or innocence, the strict standard of proof beyond a re......
-
R.L.B. v. State
...an adult." W.M. v. State, 607 So.2d 1303, 1304-05 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). See also Ex parte W.T.K., 586 So.2d 850 (Ala.1991); Smith v. State, 475 So.2d 633 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). With respect to a finding of probable cause, the Alabama Supreme Court held in Duncan v. State, 394 So.2d 930 " 'Since th......
-
Ex parte Brown
..."a mere restatement of the factors set out in the statute is sufficient" to meet the requirements of § 12-15-34(d). Smith v. State, 475 So.2d 633, 635 (Ala.Crim.App.1985); Brown v. State, 353 So.2d 1384 (Ala.1977). A reading of the order clearly demonstrates that each factor was considered ......