 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State12/22/2000
he was mentally retarded, and if so, to what extent, was sharply disputed by the mental health experts. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the appellant was competent to stand trial. Under the circumstances, the trial court was not required to pursue the inquiry further. There was no reasonable ground on which to doubt the appellant's competency. There was no error in the trial court's ruling and certainly there was no plain error.
VIII.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion seeking access to the records of the grand jury proceedings. He argues that the motion should have been granted "so that he might be prepared to challenge the state's case and, if necessary, impeach the state's witness." (Appellant's brief, p. 30.)
"In Arthur v. State, 711 So. 2d 1031, 1078-79 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996), this Court stated:
"`"Before a defendant is allowed to inspect a transcript of a State's witness who testified before the grand jury or before a trial judge should conduct an in camera inspection of such testimony ... the defendant should at least and at a very minimum make some offer of proof (1) that the matters contained in the witness' grand jury testimony were relevant to the subject matter of the prosecution; (2) and that there exists an inconsistency between grand jury testimony and trial testimony. Unless defense counsel is merely going on a fishing expedition, he will have some information as to the particular inconsistency in the [witness's] testimony. In this case no such showing was made and the existence of any inconsistency between the witness' trial and grand jury testimony was never even alleged. ... Also, there was no showing that the witness' grand jury testimony, if available, was `of such nature that without it the defendant's trial would be fundamentally unfair.'
"`"....
"`Millican v. State, 423 So. 2d 268, 270-71 (Ala. Cr. App. 1982).'
"See Mims v. State, 591 So. 2d 120, 126 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). `While it is true that broader discovery is to be allowed in cases involving capital murder because of the possible imposition of the death penalty, Ex parte Monk, 557 So. 2d 832, 836-37 (Ala. 1989), a defendant must make a preliminary showing of particularized need before a court can balance this need against the policy favoring grand jury secrecy.' Arthur v. State, 711 So. 2d at 1078." Mitchell v. State, 706 So. 2d 787, 806 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
The appellant failed to make a preliminary showing of a particularized need for the grand jury information. The trial court properly denied his motion. (In his brief to this court, he does not advance any specific facts to support his argument.)
IX.
The appellant contends that, in the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied him his right to present, in mitigation, evidence of his "family circumstances," violating, he argues, Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), and the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He asserts that the purpose of this evidence was to show that he "grew up in a markedly dysfunctional family." (Appellant's brief, p. 34.) He further argues that, by disallowing evidence of his family circumstances, the trial court diminished the magnitude of his deficiencies, and by doing so, he argues, thwarted an individualized assessment of the appropriateness of the punishment. It follows, he argues, that the trial court further erred in disallowing argument and instruction on this excluded evidence.
It appears from his argument in brief that the appellant claims that the trial court allegedly erred in precluding evidence indicating th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|