Legal Progress Noted in Danville, Virginia
Press Release
February 17, 1964

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bozeman & Wilder Working Files. Killough v. State Court Opinion, 1982. 52ed5480-ee92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/668bba41-2b40-43d4-a0e1-65011cdd44d3/killough-v-state-court-opinion. Accessed June 01, 2025.
Copied!
LEVEL 1 - 4 OF 5 CASES Lee ~illough v State No. 3 Div. 400 Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama 438 So.2d 311 June 29, 1982; Rehearing denied July 27, 1982; As amended October 25, 1982 Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court Before BOWEN, JUDGE. Harris, PJ, Tyson, DeCarlo, JJ, concur; Barron, J, recused himself. Vaughan H. Robison, David B. Byrne, Jr., and John M. Bolton, III for Robison & Belser t Montgomery For Appellant - Charles A. Graddick, Attorney General, and Rivard Melson, Asst. Atty. Gen. For Appellee 438 So. 2d 311 BOWEN BOWEN, JUDGE This is a companion case to Toofie Deep v. State, So.2d <Ala.Cr.App., 3 Div. 391, Ms. January 26, 1982), cert. denied, So.2d <Ala., Ms. May 21, 1982).. Following Deep's conviction for theft, the defendant in this cause was indicted for the theft of the same property, a Morgan portable building, in vi olation of Alabama Code 1975 , Section 13A-8- 3. Sentence was three years ' imprisonment. Seven issues are raised on appeal. I The theft of the building occurred while the ~ was the Director of Disaster Housing in Mobile following Hurricane Frederic. Wiltiam Foster wa~the M_pbile Hom~& Chief cf the Disaster Housing Office from Septe111'1:ler 14, 1979, until April 30, 1980. During this time he kept a ¥nrsonal !;liary rela · to the · tbe-D-i-5-astsr Hou.s ing-&ffrce. e defendant con ends tha failure of the trial judge to order the production of the entire diary constitutes reversible error. ',......_ ................. ..... ......_ ___ ____ -~-----~- .. ------ -------- -····· ------------- -------------------- .... - ---··· 438 So . 2d 311 Four days ~efore5 if:~~s the defendant formaliz.ed his request for production of the diary by cau ter to be served with a subpoena duces tecum as authorized by Alabama Code 1975, Section 12-21-2. After a jury had been empaneled but before any witness had taken the stand, a hearing was conducted to de term i ne whet he F-t:..O.SL.te.t-l~t±er-GB-I~lU-l..t.e.Jil---100...-fU01l.lbUC~eL...-- s ec the f e Although Foster testified as a State's witness at the trial of Toofie Deep, defense counsel stated that did not know the contents of the diary, but that its production was essential impeach he anticipated testimony Foster would give as a State witness. '\ltte---fftl:l::cwtneg co uy is revera 1 "THE COURT: What, specifically, are you looking for in it, Mr. Byrne ldefense counsel>? Can you tell the court that? "MR. BYRNE: Your Honor, I don't have any idea. All I know is that the State of Alabama has taken a document that is not t hei r work produc t and t hey are jumping up and down to prevent it from being brought to light in any fashion. And we sui:Hiit, and based upon... I don't know what is in it." "MR. BYRNE: Well, we know through the testimony of that witness that there were conversations on Januarv the 4th. on January the 7th, and at the Deep 1