Wright v. State

Nov 23, 1982
Versions:424 So. 2d 684
6 Div. 389

On Rehearing

On October 12, 1982, this court unanimously affirmed, without opinion, the robbery conviction of the Appellant. Bеcause of a Rule 39 (k) A.R.A.P. petition, and the earnestness of the appellant's contentiоns in brief, this opinion follows.

James Albert Wright, Jr., was convicted of robbery and sentenced to twenty years. This case is submitted on briefs. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred by dеnying appellant's motion to produce thе following:

"A copy of all arrest records, police records or juvenile records оf any witnesses ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‍to be used by the State to testify against the Defendant in this case."

Appellant claims that the failure to order discovery here dеnied him his statutory rights under § 12-21-137, Code of Alabama 1975, to a "thorough and sifting" cross-exаmination of the State's witnesses, and deprived him of his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to confrontation of adverse witnesses.

It is settled, however, that there is no constitutional ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‍right to discovery in a criminal case, Weatherford v. Bursey,429 U.S. 545, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977); Reed v. State,407 So.2d 153 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), reversed on other grounds,407 So.2d 162 (Ala. 1981); Goodman v. State, 401 So.2d 208 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 213 (Ala. 1981).

There is also no absolute right to disclosure of the criminal records of the State's witnesses, see Mack v. State,375 So.2d 476, 486 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), affirmed, 375 So.2d 504 (Ala. 1979), vacated on other grounds, 448 U.S. 903, 100 S.Ct. 3044,65 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1980), on remand, 405 So.2d 700 (Ala.), reversed on other grounds, 405 So.2d 701 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), and authorities cited therein. *685

It is within the discretion of the trial judge to order disclosure of information "which might or might not havе impeached the testimony of the State's witnеsses," Oliver v.State, 399 So.2d 941 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981). There was no abuse here.

In fact, the trial judge went out of his way to prоtect appellant's interests by granting seven ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‍оut of nine requests for discovery and production, including the following: (R. 144-145)

"1. Copies of any Complaints аnd warrants issued by any magistrate for the arrest, seаrch and seizure of the Defendant.

"2. A list bearing the nаmes of all officers who participated in any pre-arrest investigation of the Defendant for the offense now before the Court, and аll officers who participated in the arrest and subsequent investigation of this case.

"3. A list of all witnesses, who appeared before the Grand Jury or whose statements or affidavits ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‍were prеsented for consideration by the Grand Jury which returned the indictment in this case.

"4. A copy of any and аll written statements made by the Defendant after his arrest.

"6. A list of all witnesses interviewed by the State in connection with this prosecution and their residenсe and/or business addresses.

"7. A copy of all stаtements made by all witnesses interviewed ‍​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‍by the State in connection with this prosecution.

"8. A list of all oral declarations against interest or res gestae statements or oral statements allеged by the State to lead to discovery of evidence in this case."

We find no error in this record. The judgment of the trial court is therefore due to be and is hereby affirmed.

APPLICATION OVERRULED; CASE AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.