Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 03 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 422 |
| Citation | 51 Ala.App. 573,287 So.2d 889 |
| Parties | Archie TAYLOR v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Calvin M. Howard, Birmingham, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G. L. Marston, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County and sentenced to life imprisonment. Prior to arraignment is was This is a bizarre case. There were four eye witnesses to the killing. Appellant knew the witnesses and they knew him yet he denied he was at the scene. A police officer saw him running from the scene and chased him about four blocks but another officer 'headed him off', and he was taken into custody. He first told his court appointed lawyer that he was in a cafe about two blocks away having an egg sandwich and a cup of coffee when the homicide occurred and when he left the cafe he saw an ambulance and a crowd of people gathered around. He got curious as to what was happening and decided to investigate. When he reached the scene he was placed under arrest and was not told why. His lawyer made a thorough investigation as to the facts in the case as well as appellant's alibi. No one in the cafe saw him on the morning of the homicide. He stuck to this story until two minutes before the trial started at which time he turned to his lawyer and said, He produced a receipt from the warden at the county jail and claimed the date thereon was August 1, 1971, and the shooting occurred on August 6. This alibi was shot down when the jailer testified that what appeared to be August 1, was actually August 7, 1971. Appellant's alibi 'cracked up' and the jury 'cracked down' on him. The verdict was rendered on February 2, 1972, and on February 7, 1972, the trial judge received a letter from appellant requesting that he be given a new trial because his lawyer failed to produce some very important evidence during the trial that was available and well known to the attorney. The letter 1 was treated by the trial judge as a motion for a new trial. A day was set to hear the motion and another lawyer was appointed to represent appellant at the hearing and now represents him on this appeal.
ascertained that appellant was indigent and counsel was appointed to represent him.
At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the following facts were developed:
The police officer who was in 'hot pursuit' of appellant immediately after the killing stopped bythe body of the deceased and picked up a pocket knife with the blade two-thirds open. He put the knife in his pocket to preserve evidence. This officer returned to the scene and found the deputy coroner of the county examining the body. He told the coroner about the knife. During a recess at the main trial the coroner told the judge about the knife. The trial judge called the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney to his chambers for a discussion of this matter. Both knew about the open knife in or near the hand of the deceased at the place of the killing. The prosecution knew about the knife as this evidence was presented to the grand jury and the defense attorney was permitted to read the grand jury notes. In addition to this information the defense attorney in making his preparations
for trial went to the coroner's office and made inquiry as to whether a blood sample was taken from the body of the deceased to determine if he had been drinking. He learned that a blood sample had been taken and the State Toxicologist had made his report. This report is as follows:
'Dear Sir:
'The specimen of blood received by this laboratory on August 9, 1971 has been subjected to microanalyses as requested.
'Microchemical analyses of this specimen have identified 0.23 per cent ethyl alcohol therein.
'A person with the above per cent of alcohol in his blood would be considered under the influence of intoxicating beverages and incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle or conducting other tasks requiring a similar degree of skill and coordination.
'This specimen will be retained in this laboratory for seven days and will be destroyed after that time unless further instructions are received from you.
'Yours very truly,
C. J. Rehling, Ph.D.
State Toxicologist
/s/ Robert B. Johnson
Toxicologist' All of the above and more was related to the trial judge during the recess. The defense attorney told the judge that he pleaded with appellant to let him put this evidence on and appellant steadfastly refused to do so and vehemently denied that he shot and killed the deceased.
Armed with these two most valuable pieces of evidence, the defense attorney again consulted appellant and told him he (the attorney) could make a good case of self-defense. Appellant replied, 'maybe we could, but I wasn't there.' The defense attorney said, 'Well, I cannot make out a case of self-defense if you weren't there.' Appellant said
Appellant testified on the motion for a new trial and on cross-examination the prosecution asked him if it was not true that during the course of the trial, in the courtroom in the presence of the defense attorney and the prosecutor, right before any testimony was taken, that the defense attorney told him that his best defense was self-defense, and appellant denied that this occurred, saying 'He haven't mentioned self-defense to me during the whole time he walked (sic) up to me.' Just after the jury was struck the defense attorney said to appellant, Appellant again refused.
Faced with a recalcitrant and uncooperative defendant who was adamant in 'quarterbacking' his own trial, the defense attorney negotiated with the prosecution and obtained an agreement with the State that it would accept a term of twenty (20) years in the penitentiary. This was submitted to appellant and it was rejected by him.
In chambers, after being made aware of the open knife and appellant's staunch refusal to cooperate and allow his lawyer to conduct the defense in the way he thought proper, the trial judge told the defense attorney to 'make voluminous notes, so that if he needed to remember almost immediately, or years later, that he would have enough notes to refresh his recollection about this, because, in my opinion, the petitioner (defendant), through interference in this case, or because the case was the case it was, or whatever it was, after a long period of time in the penitentiary, then he would come back and say that someone had improperly represented him.'
At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the court said, 'Now, the court wants to go ahead and take testimony on this matter for more reasons than one, one being that I see no reason of going up on appeal and having a silent record on this and then coming back on a coram nobis, which is the normal way a contention such as this is handled.'
Appellant did not wait on the efflux of time when memories tend to fade and recollections grow dim. He wrote the letter five (5) days after his conviction. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court overruled the motion for a new trial.
During the months intervening from indictment, arraignment and trial, the defense attorney conferred with appellant on numerous occasions as to witnesses who might be able to give favorable testimony in behalf of appellant, including character evidence. Appellant gave him the names of some white ladies in Mountain Brook and Vestavia for whom he did yard work. One woman contacted by the attorney said she only knew him as a yard man and did not know anything about his character and reputation. His attorney then checked appellant's FBI report or 'rap sheet' and found that appellant had been convicted and served time for many crimes of violence throughout the country. In the light of his past record, the attorney abandoned his search for character witnesses and rightly so.
The sole and only claim of error on this appeal is the action of the trial court in overruling and denying the motion for a new trial.
We believe that all legal minds, familiar with the facts as developed on the motion for a new trial can be of but one persuasion and that is that the evidence relating to the open knife and the intoxicated condition of the deceased should be submitted to a jury. It is most probable that a different verdict will be rendered.
A lawyer must never subordinate his professional knowledge, skills, trial strategy or tactics to the whims of a client whether he be of feeble intellect, completely illiterate, a member of the intelligentsia, of low birth or born in the upper strata of society. To hold otherwise will cause the adversary system to collapse and, in most cases, be an effective denial of the guarantee of the right to counsel contained in the Sixth Amendment and so eloquently expressed in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68--69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 64, 77 L.Ed. 158, wherein it is stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State
...Appeals reversed Taylor's conviction and held that the motion for a new trial should have been granted. Taylor v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 51 Ala.App. 573, 287 So.2d 889 (1973). This court granted the State's petition for It affirmatively appears that after a full, independent investigation of t......