Wright v. State, 8 Div. 793
| Decision Date | 31 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 793 |
| Parties | William Claud WRIGHT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Owen Bridges, Montgomery, of counsel, for the Petition.
Bradshaw, Barnett & Haltom, E. B. Haltom, Jr., Florence, opposed.
The Court of Appeals in its opinion said:
* * *
.
Mitchell v. State, 244 Ala. 503, 14 So.2d 132, involved the prosecution of a capital felony. There are expressions, however, in this decision which might have led the Court of Appeals to make its comment with reference to the consent of the defendant and his counsel to a separation in a case involving a noncapital felony. In denying the writ we do not mean to agree that in a prosecution for a noncapital felony the defendant and his counsel and the prosecuting officer may not consent to a separation of the jury. In such a situation the court being apprised of such consent beyond the hearing of the jury may in its discretion authorize such a separation. In this event there would be no burden on the state to establish affirmatively that the separated juror or jurors were subjected to no influence or contacts that might have influenced their verdict.
With reference to the proposed procedure by the Court of Appeals as to proof of statements confessory in character by a recording machine, we think it best to reserve the right to consider this matter when and if presented to this court.
The writ is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNair v. State
...S.Ct. 19, 81 L.Ed. 410 (1936), to impeach a witness, Wright v. State, 38 Ala.App. 64, 68, 79 So.2d 66, 69 (1954), cert. denied, 262 Ala. 420, 79 So.2d 74 (1955), to enhance punishment under the Habitual Felony Offender Act, Ex parte Jenkins, 586 So.2d 176, 177 (Ala.1991); Snipes v. State, 4......
-
People v. Furman
...jury's presence to rule on objections to admissibility. Accord, Wright v. State, 38 Ala.App. 64, 79 So.2d 66 (1954), cert. den. 262 Ala. 420, 79 So.2d 74 (1955). In Larimer v. State, 163 Ind.App. 673, 326 N.E.2d 277 (1975), it was held error to play a tape of a confession to the jury withou......
-
Smith v. State
...for the purpose of discrediting a witness.’ Wright v. State, 38 Ala.App. 64, 68, 79 So.2d 66, 69 [(1954)], cert. denied, 262 Ala. 420, 79 So.2d 74 (195[5])." Singleton v. State, 622 So.2d 934, 935 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).Moreover, the circuit court gave Smith wide latitude in attempting to impe......
-
Smith v. State, No. CR-97-1258 (Ala. Crim. App. 1/16/2009)
...jurisdiction for the purpose of discrediting a witness.' Wright v. State, 38 Ala. App. 64, 68, 79 So. 2d 66, 69, cert. denied, 262 Ala. 420, 79 So. 2d 74 (1954)." Singleton v. State, 622 So. 2d 934, 935 (Ala.Crim.App. Moreover, the circuit court gave Smith wide latitude in attempting to imp......