State ex rel. Baxley v. Strawbridge
| Decision Date | 20 June 1974 |
| Citation | 292 Ala. 506,296 So.2d 784 |
| Parties | In re STATE of Alabama ex rel. William J. BAXLEY, as Attorney General v. Hon. Cecil H. STRAWBRIDGE, Circuit Judge. Ex parte Cecil H. STRAWBRIDGE, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Lamar County, Alabama. SC 849. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James K. Davis, Hamilton, Zeanah, Donald, Lee & Williams and Wilbor J. Hust, Jr., Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.
No brief for respondent.
We are in accord with the result reached in this proceeding by the Court of Criminal Appeals, 52 Ala.App. 685, 296 So.2d 779.
For the sake of clarifying our denial of this petition for writ of certiorari, we wish to make the following observations.
The case of State v. Revere, 232 La. 184, 94 So.2d 25, so strongly relied on by the petitioner Strawbridge is inapposite. This for the reason that in Revere the party present in the grand jury room and operating the recording device was an investigator in the District Attorney's office. In the present case the District Attorney, who had full statutory authority to be with the grand jury at the time, and who departed before the grand jury began its deliberations, operated the recording device himself.
Even so, the dissent in Revere points out that the conclusion reached by the majority is contrary to the prevailing view throughout the country. The dissent also observes that the presence of the operator of the recording device, who departed with the District Attorney before the grand jury began its deliberations 'was no more prejudicial to the accused than if the same testimony had been recorded on a phonograph or other mechanical device; and surely that would not prejudice the accused or suffice to vitiate the finding of the grand jury.' The statement quoted in dissent as set out immediately above, was quoted from the earlier Louisiana case of State v. Louviere, 165 La. 718, 115 So. 914.
Even had a stenographer been present, and retired from the presence of the grand jury before it began its deliberations, no error to reverse would have resulted in the absence of a showing of prejudice to the accused. As stated in an annotation to be found in 4 A.L.R.2d at page 395, amply supported by authorities from some twelve of our sister states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Birmingham News Co., Inc.
...99 S.Ct. 1667, 1672, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979). "The salient feature of grand jury procedure is secrecy." State ex rel. Baxley v. Strawbridge, 52 Ala.App. 685, 687, 296 So.2d 779, 780, cert. denied, 292 Ala. 506, 296 So.2d 784 (1974). In contrast to criminal trial proceedings, which are presump......
-
Coral v. State
...at 1327 (citation omitted). See also McConico v. State. A grand jury may indict on hearsay testimony alone. State ex rel. Baxley v. Strawbridge, 52 Ala.App. 685, 296 So.2d 779 (1974), cert. denied, 292 Ala. 506, 296 So.2d 784 (Ala.1974); Douglas v. State, 42 Ala.App. 314, 163 So.2d 477 (196......
-
Waldrop v. State
...U.S. 412, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). In this state a felony prosecution begins with an indictment. State ex rel. Baxley v. Strawbridge, 52 Ala.App. 685, 296 So.2d 779, cert. denied, 292 Ala. 506, 296 So.2d 784 (1974). Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attache......
-
Poole v. State
...People ex. rel. Battista v. Christian, 249 N.Y. 314, 164 N.E. 111, 61 A.L.R. 793 (1928)). See also State ex rel. Baxley v. Strawbridge, 52 Ala.App. 685, 687, 296 So.2d 779, 781, cert. denied, 292 Ala. 506, 296 So.2d 784 (1974). More specifically, since the jurisdiction of the court, in felo......