Comer v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Comer v. State

611 So. 2d 1118, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 442, 1992 WL 173617

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJuly 24, 1992

DocketCR-89-14

StatusPublished

This text of 611 So. 2d 1118 (Comer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Comer v. State, 611 So. 2d 1118, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 442, 1992 WL 173617 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[1119]*1119ON RETURN TO REMAND

PATTERSON, Presiding Judge.

We remanded this cause to the trial court, pursuant to Ex parte, Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991), with “instructions to conduct a hearing to determine whether the prior statement of the defendant, Shirley Comer, which was used by the state for impeachment purposes at her trial, was voluntary or was the product of coercion or involuntary influences.” Comer v. State, 591 So.2d 17 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). The trial court has complied with our instructions.

The trial court, after considering the witnesses’ demeanor at the hearing, the facts presented at trial and at the hearing, as well as the testimony given at the hearing, concluded that Comer’s statement was voluntary. The trial court found that no threat, promise or offer of reward, or any other form of coercion induced Comer to give the complained-of statement. Although the testimony is conflicting, the trial court’s findings and conclusion are supported by the record. Under these circumstances, we will not disturb the findings and conclusion of the trial court. See Jackson v. State, 562 So.2d 1373 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); McNair v. State, 50 Ala.App. 465, 280 So.2d 171, cert. denied, 280 So.2d 177 (1973).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1119]*1119ON RETURN TO REMAND

PATTERSON, Presiding Judge.

We remanded this cause to the trial court, pursuant to Ex parte, Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991), with “instructions to conduct a hearing to determine whether the prior statement of the defendant, Shirley Comer, which was used by the state for impeachment purposes at her trial, was voluntary or was the product of coercion or involuntary influences.” Comer v. State, 591 So.2d 17 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). The trial court has complied with our instructions.

The trial court, after considering the witnesses’ demeanor at the hearing, the facts presented at trial and at the hearing, as well as the testimony given at the hearing, concluded that Comer’s statement was voluntary. The trial court found that no threat, promise or offer of reward, or any other form of coercion induced Comer to give the complained-of statement. Although the testimony is conflicting, the trial court’s findings and conclusion are supported by the record. Under these circumstances, we will not disturb the findings and conclusion of the trial court. See Jackson v. State, 562 So.2d 1373 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); McNair v. State, 50 Ala.App. 465, 280 So.2d 171, cert. denied, 280 So.2d 177 (1973).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 So. 2d 1118, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 442, 1992 WL 173617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comer-v-state-alacrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack