Connell v. State Court Opinion 2

    790 Aln. 3T8 SOUTEERN R,r;YORTXR, 2d SER,IES

ness, rvas available to the defense for usein inrpeaching interrogation,

It appears to us that the defendant u.as
precluded by the trial court from .rorr_.*-
amining the witnels fully with ,..0..,-i"
her statenrents to the officers 

"na 
*", a.-

nied the right to formulate t i, qu.rti*. t-1.
ruse of thc officer's notes and the tran_
scription, or to use said notes ancl the tran_script as a memoranda and guide in .;;-
ducting the exarnination.

This court helcl irr Builc.r, 2,. .rtate, 24
Ala.App. 3.39, l.i-i So. 407, it.,"t tt" pror._
cuting attorrre-v had a right to refer to'grand jury notes,' in formulating qr..-
tions orr cross-crarrrin;rtion of a<irelse'rrit_
nesses.

The Suprtnre Court of r\labanra held inl'urker i,. .S'to!t,, 266 Ala. OS, v+ So.Za ioO,
that the trial court in a homicid. p.o...,,_
tion would not l.re ptrt in error ior'lr.rnrii_
ting the solicitor to cross-erartrine the de_
fendant from rvritten transcript of t"p. ,._
corded statements made by ttre defenaant
to the police, soon aftlr the latat ,h;;;:
where the transcription was not admitted
tnto evidence or authenticated in any man-
ner by the defendant.

'l'he trial court stated:

"The Court: Well, I,ll tell you. I
think I'll iust take the bull by the horns
right norv and say that you can,t ask her
ally more questions fronr that statement,
any more questions from that statement.,,

ant's counsel fronr cross_exami
witness, the only eye_witness who
while using the transcription and
a guide in so doing.

IV.

t9] Defendant further

So. 854, tf,hich i, th.
sanity in :Atabama. Thb,\

to manslaughter in the first diili
the court declined to instruct
said manslaughter.

We conclude from the
defendant was guilty of
any other offense embraced
rhent. The evidence of th
ness to the crime, Mrs.
the homicide was
excnse or justification
a robbery of the victim Mr..:i
the rvitness. The defendant
the stand, neither did any
three alleged participants apry
ness for the defendant..
ror in the refusal of the

the trial court erred in charging ori
it1'as a defense to the alteged cri;:;

As u,c view the record, the dei
addrrced evidence by competent and
ble u,itnesses that he was

There u,as no testilnon-r. that this
conditiorr u.as due to a diseased;
Neither. rvas thcre any testimony i{under the insanity plea that met
dates of lrorsons r,. Stdte, gl A

rhc defendant's wr:

nretrts of manslaug)

Rogsdole {. Stole,

674: Booth z'. Stotr

127. When the st

made out a case o

11t6,-r{ed murder, an,

rr(, evidence, the

rcfusc.d the defenc

:rs to the reduction
cide to nranslaugh

$as guilty, there w
thc evidence to rt
rrrurdcr and the cot
\\ nlten charge rel
.\rrr',rrl i'. -slalc, 2.

.i;(11 1-l).

Il] I)efendant
(ourt committed re'
rng an FBI agent, 1

Btify abotrt.contcn
*ootrnting fgr thb ;

There \\'ere no gr

objection. The rul
not revievvable. k
.\l;r.npp. 529, nT -<

Grco! Sotthert R. (
+rS, 40 So. 402r S
tlon, 192 Ala. 528, r

Bodman, 212 Ala.
Conzi,ay 2,. Robittsot
531; Alabama Dig
end Error @231(3)

.t

i

[12] Defendant'r
lhe court committed
&sing to allow the
rnine the FBI ag
tvhich the witness te
iartion.
' Wc think it is rea
testimony of the wi
rhersage, the subject

6f tha whicbs

ed, rvas nreek and arniable 
", " "iffihe had 

.no 
propensity. to fight ".;;,r.:ph-vsical conrbat with others, *fr., i.t;l? ii

i.::..: 
f #'' i I li ", ;, j iii on., J. ;, ffi :

Tho"..',^-

his insinity plea ,r.as o" th;l"ftfi
Titlc 15, g J22, Recompiled Code I95&iA

[10] A fifth contention is thet
cou.rt erred in refusing to give thd
ant's requested charges in writlff

V.

The defense counsel made known to thetrial court that he was trying to refresh
the rrcollection of the witnesslnd efcit, iihe could, certain statements which she
omitted to tell on direct examinatjon; that
he was not trying to use the ranscription
1 n:tes as impeaching evidence. In fact,
the defense counsel offered to show the
witness the transcription, but in no in_
stance did he try to introduce the notes or
the transcription into evidencc.

We conclude that the court committed
reversible error in prectuding the defcnd_

i,
!t.

hcssage from the F