Beard v. State Court Opinion

    S

r, 281 Ala. 29, 198 So.2d

is v. Statc,280 Ala. ,168,

D<lgil v. StaCe, suprr.
r is credible testimony to
he evidence is fairly cr.
rg the inference that th
and voluntarineEs wott
ling of the trial juftr
rpported by substantid
t to a moral certainty.

', 40 Ala.App. 5?1, ll?
tenied, ZI0 Ala. i28, ll?

ras given the if,randr
JS On sever8l occasionr.

!€ was laid showing tht
not induced by thrcrtr,

pe of favor or other in-
g on the prisoner's mind

rnfessed. We hold tho
perly admitted into evl.

, consideration. I'oku v.

, 179 So.2l 714; Sanden

4&9, 179 So.2d 35.

y searched the recond lor
rffecting the substantid
I and have found nonc.

f conviction is affirmod.

,ncur, except CATES, P'

YXUIEERSYSIEI )*

P. BEARD

v.

ITATE.

Div. 416.

rl Appeals of Alabrmr

;. 5, 1976.

u convictBd beforc 'tlr
*ll"d"g" CountY, Willtl!

BEARD v. STATE
Ctt 8tt?SoJd ItZt

inal Appeals, Harry E. pickens, Circuit
e, held that permitting officers to re- 6. Criminel Lsw c4gig(l)

Ala. 1373
Iivan, J', of murder in the second inframe jury if it sheds light upon material, and he appealed. The court of inquiry or illustrates transaction at issue.

prior to trial.

Iew e41215;
prcsecution for second{eg"ee mur-

prmitting police officers, over objec_
to relate their conversations with de_

prior to killing was not error.
nal [.aw 6364(1, 2)

;[etr convertations with defendant pri-
the killing was not errcr, that testime
police officers that defendant, prior to

riuing, appeared rational, spoke clearly
distinctly and appeared mad, was a6'-

that trial judge did not abuse his
by permitting introduction of

and that trial court did not err
ing to require district attoraey to
signed stst€ments made by State's

In pr"osecution for s€conddegree mur-
der, permitting intrcduction of photographs
was not abus€ of discretion.

7. Crimind l,ew c=527.713;

In prosecution for gecond-degree mur-
der, trial eourt, which made in camera in_
spection of prior written statements of wih
nesses and found that Stst€ did not uso
such statements in examination of witnes&
eB or use st8t€ments to refresh recollection
of any of such witnesses, did not err in
refusing to require district attoraey to prp-
duce signed stst€ments made by Stste,g
witnesses prior to trial.

8. Crirninal Lo,v 6622.1(g)
Statement, memoranda or notes, not

read by witness interviewed and not signed
or authenticated by witness, cannot betn_
sidered evidence.

No appearance for appellee.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and Rosa
G. Hamlett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State,
appellee.

HARRY E. PICKENS, Cireuit Judge.
The appellant was indicted for first de-

gree murder of Judy Deline Salter, by
shooting her with a rifle or carbine. Tri;
was held August 25-27, L975, and the trialjury found the appellant guilty of murder
in the second degree and fixed punishment
at thirty-five years and one day.

The appellant and the victim had at one
time dated each other but that relationship
had come to an end some few months prioi
to the killing. The appellant was a manried
man and returaed to his wife and victim
was dating one Standard Woodg at the time
of this occurrence.

Greg Franklin testified that he had
picked up Judy Salter (victim), and Linda

ieneral rule is that all acts, words,
and declarations of defendant indicat-
stility to deceased immediatety pre-
encounter, if relevant, are admissible
of res g.estae where they throw light
rns, animus or intent of defendant,

mental attitude at time of difficulty,
us it is proper to admit declarations

accused while fatal difficulty was
ss and testimony concerning his

at or near scene and until entire
Ity was abandoned by parties.

Law e345
which show preparation to com_

me are always admissible.

Law e44111;
onexpert witness may state his opin-
r app€arance of defendant, and thus
officers' testimony in prosecution for
{eg"ee murder that defendant, prior
killing appeared rational, spoke'ciear-
" diatinctly and appeared mad was

Iaw 6675
evidence is permissible

may tend tosuch evidence



1374 Ala. :}:}7 SOUTHERN REPORTEN, ZA SERIES

Gail Clopton, his girl friend, at their respec_
tive homes and proceeded to the American
Legion Club in Goodwatcr, Alabama. Upon
leaving the club, some three hours later
they saw appellant standing at the door
talking to some men. In passing, victim
accidentally bumped into appellant. The
appellant then grabbed victim by her neck
end started beating her with his fist. Greg
Franklin attempted to stop appellant from
beating victim and the appellant knocked
him to the ground and continued tp beat
the victim. Franklin again attempt€d to
stop him and the appellant pulled a knife
and keys out of his pocket. Franklin went
to his automobile, got a pistol and came
back and shot appellant in the leg. Appel_
lant chased Franklin and the girls in his
auto. Appellant then went to the hospital
and Franklin, his girl friend and the victim
went to someone's home and called the po-.
lice.

When the p,olice arrived they arrested
Franklin and took him and the two women
to the Goodwater Police Department. Vic-
tim, while at Goodwater jail called Stan_
dard Woods, her boy friend, to come get
her. Standard picked up the two girls and
took a route directly to victim's home.
While enroute to victim's home they passed
appellant's car parked on the side of the
road; appellant was talking to some people
in another car. Appellant followed Stan_
dard \{oods'car at a fast rate of speed and
shot at the car. Woods turned around and
headed for the police station. Appellant's
car followed Standard Woods' car to the
Sylacauga police station. Standard Woods'
car stopped at the police station and appel_
lant's car stopped right behind it. There
were policemen standing in front of the
police station and Standard Woods told
them that a man was shooting at his car
and following him. Appellant got out of
his car and came to the passenger side of
Standard Wood's car and said, ,,Give me
Judy out of therc." The appellant then
started shooting. Victim slumped over in
the car and she did not speak after that.

Standard Woods testified that someone
was driving appellant's car with the appel_

lant in the car on the passenger side with orifle. They drove up beside him. epp.i
lant's car passed and a shot *as fired i.o,
appellant's car. After the appellant's ..'
passed Standard Wood,s car, Woods turn;
around and drove to the SylacauSa poli;
station and appellant followed t i- 

"oietopped right behind him. Woods lat€i
found two bullet holes in his car, one in the
front roof and one in the windshiefi.
Woods further tcstified that appellant cami
to the passenger side of the car and, ,,the

police told him to stop but he fired throuch
the window and killed Judy and the co|
fired at him."

Mr. Neal Denny, a Sylacauga police offi.
cer, testified that he and Offieer Jack MrL
son went to the hospital between 1:00 A.f.
and 2:00 A.M. before the killing, due to r
routine call by the hospital that someone
was there who had been shot. The appel.
lant asked the officer.s what they werc do
ing up there and said; ,,You can go right
back to town. I'll handle this myself.,' Hc
said he did not have time to lay there and
let them take the bullet out, that he had to
get something done about this situation.
Denny tcstified; "Appellant appeared to br
coherent and to realize his acts."

Later, Offieer Denny got a call about
4:45 A.M. from an officer needing help rt
the City Hall. \{hen he got there, a Iot of
people were lying on the ground. tr
Beard (appellant), Mr. Thompson, tr
Woods, Miss Embry and Miss Clopton wcro

lying on the ground. He saw the victim ia

the car and his best judgment was that rltc
was dead.

Officer Ivey testified he went to the hc
pital and saw the appellant prior to thr

killing and he appeared to be mad and red'

"'Who called you all? I don't need ,'dl
I'll take care of this myself."' Ivey rr
him latpr about 20 or" 25 minutpr !o t
o'ciock and stated that: "We werc ar-l
our car at the police siation. A cer Pulf
up and three people in the car hollen*
'They was strootirg at us.'" A cst FIIT
up behind them and appellant got out Ill'
a rifle. Ivey yelled fo.'t,im to stoP rtd t'

and there were two gl

"we opened firre on l

on the passenger side
shots, I was looking r

ugh the body to the rig
tract ended. He foun

James Butram of the S
Toxicology, examined th

examination r.evealed
nds. One of the woun,

wound on the
which was later tracr

rnt said; ,,Stay 
ou

what I came after
the appellant moved t

woundr; some cont
contained soft, gray :

the end of the tract

ohn Case, State Departmen
test fired State's exhibi
h is a 3G--30 caliber carbir
he determined that this

missile which was recover
m's body.

u.- tltor, police officer, I
aad, Officer Ivey saw appr

rtal prior to the killing and
t3 th_e- leg and that he appr

resembled an inverte
he turned over to Ga

Elist who works in the
Case; both of whom

of Toxicology. !
wound was in the

to the right breast.
showed that the project
the arch of the aorta n
ve hemorrhage in the ch

his opinion that death wa
and shock as a resul

wound to the upper lefl

told them to the effect
them and he woul

That he and Ivey r
station later in the m,

the shooting of the vi
nt.

d, and in the right br
a brass colored fragmr

Proctor, a Sylacauga p<
that he saw appellanCa



BEARD v. STATE

rant said; ,,stay out ,, ,, ,"ilil'if:f 
Ala' 1375

.what I ."rn" "rt"i:' rvey testified *-r,, *:.1^3;:'_-1". Appetlant tord him

i'i:ry{J'+?**r"r*'u;';x:i*,i:{::f {i:fi :irf "H:?,il:
I "we.opened fire on It-- 

-o o'r,-r4.u ttllll.h" went-to the police ststions;
r on the passenge*ia"otl-l Appellant wal

ahots, r'**-'riii,r'i'il11 il il; ffi {r}^lf,: ry;'H il:l,ffi'fjH:
:mT";i*" ;rr.;;:txt fi"",iiF :tr -H,,xi.T,H"il;ff

"r"rir"iion_ *r""r"a ;TT;#;T ,n:. 
"r" in which tr," "Lti, ,* 1i.,.#

l*;,3T.:1, ln:.*11'l',:r- #j # 
" 

j*:r. 
^t-lfll,,'|r" 

co.-ner or rarradegarating wound on the left back ,r-li" So:nr{, .t€Etified r," ,i"rJ ;"';fi;1
;T: ffi",fi:_Tg p, Ji'.*rr"" Pr_;l l,ro 4,y., *,"=il*y was stirrugh the *ov to the richt ut*,-,ri"* in an automobire and ;#H;ilt1ttract ended. He fouid , ;;#; the time.

LffilS'#,:;:J?'Jff. gr"* 
",,a' -..T;;*:l,li ylf" mother or the victim,

:'xll f"'n#lli:ft m:: "f;**:,HI?;*;:*:* f#"' 
u,,* ;;;.;,' ;H;T#tTfiffi ;:;" *:Jtr11ffiil"kr,:iI ltt resembled an inverted Urfl"t i*iJi ""*.he turned over to Gai

*::.;*o.f ,I;:YJilf;# *j1yl,:T, t€qtiried that he had seen vic-lo Case; borh of "f,r, "". 

-*irf, "#X l,: g" and off f". ,*r'y""*. "fr #J;';
,Hi::::1TI.ltw. n"r"ii*""- }| l**^ Greg Frankrin and shndard

:1'i,'""iii!ix,,::1,it}Jg$ru*iJ,i"iilffi #,"1r;*:I;',f#

*,if:ii':1" *1nrf*:i li;d+i l,* ru;:: :'*tlli'#
[:i$iitiff ;:":1";IT,TlE:i:ff.:=i'J;t;nii:,trl;;i;*#";#
fge and shoek oo o i^^.-r. -. ,r r1-^-'$ilT;tfi: ffiJ""* 'r 

ti" g,"- fi;""' u" '"ia-#t J*ll"ir#'rlil:i
rD c*qp sro+o ^^___ *"-_T1^n^"_,told.Judy to come there, he9119T:' state Department of Toxicoto. :ilfd to.t3lk ,, tu"l" il;; ,ff;:'#:

,ff_t,t[fl"^t3f,:_*r:y, irru"" T wert oltside , ,"n 
"J-Greg holrered to

,'i.g'#fffl iiiT;trritl*s ilry f ;,"nnls;1ffi:, 
"T,I#,IPi,".whieh *"" .""oru.J;;;;;; started purrin;;;;'ilT' ;:T"#' ,,I:lm's body. nL-

Hn; 

';:: 
:.'I.::^:::1,:ed that 1ii. liTJ'iT,"ffi '},""'l[f il",i-and officer rvey saw appeltant ir-r-r* "b.1 ,F:-ffi^lfr ,nl"orlflT*,T;:I,ffXtiil,f;i,*::iigl;l"H l*::q ._H" ."T",bered seeing orriceria the leg and that h"'^pp""r"d .ation- *rll*:"f "Ji,[IH,ff;,Jrrr:llT;td told them to the effect ,r,", ll'iii 

"bo"rt .it?,,.. 
tr," ,pilru"t"r"id; ,,I,il 

takeli"rjn".r. and he woutd handle ii care of it.,,L That he and Ivev

li'fl '[*,t1,ff]TIi*eHIx]ft ,,:l#:'"Ti'?',-::t'T;l#
t. - - ---v "vu." ur Lne Rav Thompson drove 

"rn nl-i"JLii1r,"*o

Iyp"t" syracauga porice orricer, :H fil:":r:-:::_y,,,"ri1a. " Richard

'r,"' 
r," 1,",, i,oirii,,Ti'ff 

"1:fi I ;li".:ffi #ti::, .:ffil,l :l,tl#



1376 Ala. 337 SOUTHERN REPOBTER, 2d SERIES

shot at him. He got in his car, got his rifle.
He said; "We were about six or seven
blocke from the police station,', and he told
Ray to catch the car. The car parked in
front of the fire station and he saw two
policmen. He said they parked behind the
other automobile and he got out of the car
with his rifle; went up to the other car and
asked Judy (the victim) to get out. He
stat€d that he came down with the rifle,
pulled the trigger and fired one shot, and,
"the officerg fired and I was hit."

During State's case, defense counsel
asked the court to order the Statc to deliver
to him signed written statements made by
Stste's witnegses prior to trial date. The
witnesses did not uge their ststements while
on the witness stsnd or did State's attorney
use them in his examination. The court,
after an in camera inspection, denied de-
fense counsel's request,

I

tll Appellant contends it was error to
permit, over objection, officers to relate
their conversations with appellant prior to
the killing. Appellant's counsel objected
and gave reason for objection to be improp-
er predieate. No predicate was necessary.

tzl The general rule is that all the acts,
words, signs and declarations of defendant
indicating hostility to deceased immediately
preceding the encounter; Blair v. State,Zll
Ala. 53, 99 So. 314, if relevant, are admissi-
ble in evidence as part of the res gestae, 22
C.J.S. Criminal Law S 668, p. 10b? (1940), as
where they throw light upon the actions
animus or intent of the defendant, or his
mental attitude at the time of the difficul-
ty: McCoy v. State,2BZ Ala. 104, 166 So.
769; Stallings v. State, ?19 Ala. b80, 82
So.2d 236, cited in Levert v. State,25Z Lla.
308,42 So.zd 532.

"[I]n homicide cases, declarations of the
accused or the deceased, made just before
starting to the scene of the killing, as to
the purpose or object in going there, are

admissible as part of the res gestae
of the killing." Ingram v. State, lB Atr
App. 147,69 So. g?6, cert. den.,uU nori.
Ex parte Ingram, lgb Ala. 695, ?0 So.
1018.

Therefore, it is proper to admit declarationr
made by the accused while the fatal diffi-
culty was in progress; Brown v. State. Zi
Ala.App. 214, lffi So. 29, tris conduct aiii
near the scene and until the entire difficul.
ty has been abandoned by both parties ir
admissible. Hall v. State, 49 Ala.App. 60q
n5 *.at 374.

t3] Facts which: ,,Show preparation to
commit the crime are always admissible ia
evidence." Ellis v. State, ?A,tL Ala. ?g, ll
So.2d 861; Wilson v. State, Bl AIa.App. 600,
19 So.Zt 777.

II
t4] Appellant objected to testimony ol

police officer's characterization of appel.
lant.

The police officers testified that appet.
lant, prior to the killing, "appeared rationel,
spoke clearly and distinctly and appeamd
mad."

A non-expert witness may state his opin-
ion on the appearance of the defendanl
"'Witnesses may always be allowed to tpr.
tify as to the appearance and emotionr ol
other persons;"' Hamilton v. Statc, %l
Ala. 448, 203 So.2d 6&1.

In Parrish v. State,139 Ala. 16, 36 So.

t0L2:

"The objections to the statements of thc

witness that the defendant 'seemed all

right,' that'he talked rational,'etc., wsrc

properly overruled. Such expresciolu

were admissible under the rules [the Su'

preme Court] [has] announcod,

and for the further reason that they wcrr

admissible to show the appearan@, Q@
tions and condition of the mind of tb
defendant." [Bracketed material Eddtd'l

ln Miller v. State,107 Ala. 40, l9 So' g?'

the Alabama Supreme Court spcificrlll
ruled that: "it was competent for a witncr

tcatify that accused
,,

was allowe
normsl,'; L & i

256 Ala. 43, 5(
one "geemed all richr
Deloney v. Statn,'Dl

for appellant c<
i erred in the princiole
of cumulative evidenr

ad discretion of the trial
290 Ala. Bg9, Z16 S

Cumulative evidencr
"Though such evid

Iative and may tend
y, its admissibility will no
rheds light upon a mat€

the transaction at
tc,246 Ala. B&3,20 So.2
290 AIa. BB9, ?6 So.k

Strlr., m ata. elr, ii S,

The triat judge did
on by permitting the i

States' exhibits

The appellant conter
erred in refusing to rer

III

ry

ne. court made an in camepnor written statements

attorney to produce sirnr
by the State,s witness-es

f the appellant's motion
further found that the S

auch statements in the exr
said witnessee or use the sl

the recollection of any

!,. 9*" v. Sbte,50 Ata.A
d.634, cert. den. 2g0 AIa. B6tt was held:

t."_ 

-fi^1. 
requisite necessaq

tnspection production of a



BEARD v. STATE
Clt ..tSTSotd lt?:t

AIa. 1377
testify that accused appeared to be of a witness for use on cross-examination

Testimony was allowed that one ,,ap-
lred normal"; L & N Railroad Co. v.

ing, ?55 Ala. rE, b0 So.2d lS3; and
one "seemed all right, talked rational-
Deloney v. Statc, D5 ltla.65, 142 So.

III
nsel for appellant contends that the
emed in the principle that the admis-

of cumulative evidence is within the
discretion of the trial judge; Allen v.
290 Ala. 3:!9, Z16 So.2d E&B (fg?S).

t

he court made an in camera inspection
prior written stat"ment oi ;jffi; [t] A. statement, memorand&, or notes,

of the witness is that the statement must
be one in writing prepared by him or
prepared by another at his instsnce and
signed by him or otherwise authenticated
by him. In the instant case therc was
nothing to indicate by query of the wit-
ness by the defense or otherwiae that the
witness had given to any officer a writ
ten statement signed or authenticated by
her. There war not laid in the evidence
aly showing that any statement made by
the witness to officen before trial dif-
fered in any rcspect, from st8tementr
made to the jury during trial. Soe Ber_
Iew v. Statc of Mississippi, 28g MiEs. ?g4,
106 So.2d 146, cited with approval in the
Mabry saae, supra. Neither was therc
aay such showing of inconsistency in tee-
timony given by the witness at a prelimi-
nary hearing previously held and the tes-
timony given by her on the trial before
the jury. There is no showing that the
statement requested, if any was of such
nature that without it the defendant,s
trial would be fundamentally unfair.
The production for inspection of any such
statement as above defined lies within
the sound discretion of the Court and we
find no abuse of that discretion in the
ruling here made. See Annotation Right
of Defendant in Criminal Case to Inspec-
tion of Statement of prosecution'. Wit-
ness for Purpose of Cross Examination or
Impeachment, ? A.L.R.Bd, pp. 1gl, 21?,
219, 213, citing the Mabry *, ,up.",
and the authorities therein noted."

d the appellant's motion t" ;;;;;; not read by the witness interviewed and not
further found that the State il-;;; signed or authenticated by the witness can-

such stat€ments in the "*;;i";;r..;; 
not be considered evidence. Mabry v.

said witnesses or use the statements to S.tate, 40 
f_la.App. 1Zg, 110 So.kt 250. In

the recollection of any ,i ."rJ *ri- this 
.case, 

Harwood, P. J., writing for the
court quoted with approval:

Il Cooks v. State, b0 Ala.App. 49, 276

illd 634, cert. den. 290 AIa. Sffi, nO So.2d

Cumulative evidence is permissible
"Though guch evidence b€ only

ulative and may tend to inflame the
, its admissibility will not be affected if

light upon a material inquiry or
r the transaction at issue." A"Ay

State,246 A1a.368,20 So.2d 52{!; Atten v.
fie, N Ala. 3i19, 2T6 So.ZJ 5&3. Jackson
Stz,tn, zffi AIa. 641, ?1 So.2d 825.

The trial judge did not abuse his
by permitting the introduction of

States'exhibits S and 9.

IV
The appellant contends that the

erred in refusing to require the dis-
attorney to produce signed stst€ments
by the State's witnesses prior to trial

it was held:

"Perhaps the answer is best summariz€d
in a statement by Cardozo, C. J., in po
ple ex rcl. Lemon v. Suprcme Court of
Statc of New York, Z45 N.y. 24, 156 N.E.
&, S, 52 A.L.R. 200, whercin he ob.
served:

re first requisite necessary to secure
inspection production of a ,statement'



1378 Ala.

"'Documents are not the subject to in-
spection for the mene reason that they
will be useful in supplying a clew where-
by evidence can be gathered. Documents
to be subject to inspection must be evi-
dence themselves."'

Conclusion

We have considercd the entire record un-
der Code 1940, T. 15, S 389, fitm this exam-
ination we conclude that enpr is not made
to appear.

The forcgoing opinion was prepared by
Honorable Harry E. Pickens, Circuit Judge,
temporarily on duty on the Court pursuant
to subgection (a) of $ 88, T. 18, Code 1940,

as amended; the Court has adopted his
opinion as its own.

The judgment below is hereby

AFT'IRMED.

TYSON, HARRIS, DeCARLO and
BOOKOUT, JJ., concur.

Alvin Vernon PARKE& aliae

v.

STATE.

7 Div. 468.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 5, 1976.

Defendant was convicted before the
Circuit Court, Etowah County, Cyril L.

337 SOUTHERN REPORTE& 2d SERIES
PA

(

14s e656(3), 1166.22(
Smith, J., of robbery, and he appeale6 r

8:H,,:f , 3;:[11"! "dri:i,l;*,#that trial court did not.err in susteiil

lffi ' :H:l':ff t ",:];:,:,il{ill,Jjt
at scene of crime; that
remarking to lawyers at bench that v*I,
tariness of defendant's statement 

"r" t"Idetermined by jury, but that rr.h ..ror ri
hsrmless because defendant denied 1|
making any statement or confegsion to i
lice offieers after receiving Miranda rrl,
ing.; that trial judge did not abur i
discr€tion by sustaining State's objectr
to certain questions asked for purpaa J
showing that victim and defendant hsd n
conflicts which had developed ill wilt b
tween them; that while it would have hr
proper for trial court to sustain objecthl
to remarks made by prosecuting attore
during closing srgument about what hc r
membered from when he was a child, thn
was no reversible error; and that ultl
court did not err in failing to instruct c
Iesser included offenses of larceny and r,
sault.

Affirmed.

Bookout, J., filed specially concun{13

opinion.

l. Criminal Lsw F'412(l)
Both oral testimony of witness u lo

oral statement he heard defendant malrc io

investigating officer at scene of robbcT,

which statement was reduced to writiA
and signed by accused, and said writn
statement were primary evidence; rI
though written evidence, which prosecutig

attorney claimed constituted best evideno'

might have been more convincing and ra

cordingly of greater weight, either could

have been admitted and it was not error fr
court to sustain objection to oral stattmenl

2' criminal 1'aa' e532
Ordinarily, when voluntariness of <!0

fession is brought to a question, dutl {
in first instance on trial ludge to deterrdr

whether confession was voluntary'

iudgB erred in robbery pr
ing to lawyers at benc

of defendant's statemr
was to be determin

, error was harmless b,

denied ever making any
to officers after r

wamlngs.

Lew e'7i16(2)

or not statement by a
waa ever made is r

determined by jury.

Lew c=5i18(2)

disregsrd confession i
doubt as to its

I^rw c=1134(3)

of whether trial court er

by sustaining obj

addressed on direct exami
who, in response to prc

question as to whetl
that which was read i

that had Miranda warning
arrested for trespassing

pior to robbery giving rise
stat€d that he thought I

defendant understood r

that he had signed was

6370(l)
judge did not abuse his dis(
prosecution by sustaining I

to questions asked for purl
tlat victim and defendant ha

which had developed ill w
where evidence was inr

unconnected with that ch

and irrelevant in its obj
ld have shed no light on exi

Law e> 1171.1(3)

it would have been prol
in robbery prosecution k

objections to remarks ma

attorney during closing
what he remembered