 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State12/22/2000
and was optimally efficient.
XXIII.
The appellant contends that it was error for the trial court to refuse the jury's request to be permitted to listen to a portion of the appellant's testimony. After the jury was excused to begin deliberations, the following occurred:
"THE COURT: Let the record reflect that Gwen Cooper, my court reporter, was carrying the exhibits back to the jury room, and a juror requested to know something that the defendant had said on the stand while he was testifying. And, of course, Gwen came and relayed that message to me.
"My ruling is that I'm not going to allow that, because, first of all, [the jurors are] supposed to rely on their memories. They heard the evidence. They are supposed to determine what the facts are. Second of all, if you were to read a small portion of what the defendant said, then that only highlights a certain portion. If, in fact, that is to be done, then the whole transcript should be made available to the jury for their consideration. And because of that reason, that it's an impossibility to make a whole transcript available to the jury at this point in time, I think that is the reason that you don't allow the jury to hear any portion thereof. The defense has entered an objection to that stating that they should be allowed to read any portion of the transcript, because it's, in fact, evidence. And do y'all have any comments before I bring the jury in?"
After denying the request, the trial court instructed the jurors that they must rely on what they heard from the witness stand and any notes that they may have made.
The attorney general correctly points out that whether to allow testimony to be reread to the jury is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
"'The rule governing additional instructions to a jury is
Rule 22.2, Ala.R.Crim.P., which provides:
"'"After the jurors have retired to consider their verdict, if they request to have any testimony repeated, or if they or any party requests additional instructions, the court may recall the jurors to the courtroom and order the testimony read or give appropriate additional instructions. The court may also order other testimony read or give other instructions, so as not to give undue prominence to the particular testimony or instructions requested. Such testimony may be read or such instructions given only after notice to the parties."
"'"This rule is permissive, rather than mandatory[,] as evidenced by the use of the word 'may.'" Jackson v. State, 581 So. 2d 553, 559 (Ala. Crim. App.1991).'
"Grayson v. State, 675 So. 2d 516, 523 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) (emphasis added). Furthermore, ' he decision to allow the jury to rehear testimony rests with the trial judge.' Collins v. State, 611 So. 2d 498, 502 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) (citing Fitchard v. State, 424 So. 2d 674 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Hammes v. State, 417 So. 2d 594 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Martin v. State, 504 So. 2d 335 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), and United States v. Sims, 719 F.2d 375 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1034 ... (1984))." Scott v. State, 728 So. 2d 172 (Ala. 1999) (emphasis omitted).
The record does not indicate that the jury made the request because it was confused about a legal issue in the case, see Deutcsh v. State, 610 So. 2d 1212, 1218 (Ala. Crim. App.1992); in fact, it does not reveal the reason behind the jury's request. Therefore, under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in refusing the jury's request.
XXIV.
A.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge on the offenses of murder with ext
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.
|
|