Goodwin v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Goodwin v. State

516 So. 2d 821, 1987 Ala. LEXIS 4539, 1987 WL 1553

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 18, 1987

Docket86-117

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 516 So. 2d 821 (Goodwin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodwin v. State, 516 So. 2d 821, 1987 Ala. LEXIS 4539, 1987 WL 1553 (Ala. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having carefully read and considered the record and briefs of counsel, we conclude that the writ is due to be quashed. However, we do not agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals, 516 So.2d 818 that a defendant must make a showing that a desired witness is “willing to testify” before he is entitled to a continuance. It is true that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281, 1287 (5th Cir.1976), stated that a movant for a continuance must show, inter alia, that the desired witness is “willing to testify.” However, that language is conspicuously absent in a more recent Eleventh Circuit decision, Dickerson v. Alabama, 667 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 878, 103 S.Ct. 173, 74 L.Ed.2d 142 (1982). The whole purpose of compulsory process is to compel an individual to appear in court and testify. While the witness [822]*822may invoke his constitutional right not to testify as to those matters that might tend to incriminate him, he has no other right to simply refuse to testify.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, BEATTY, ADAMS, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having carefully read and considered the record and briefs of counsel, we conclude that the writ is due to be quashed. However, we do not agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals, 516 So.2d 818 that a defendant must make a showing that a desired witness is “willing to testify” before he is entitled to a continuance. It is true that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281, 1287 (5th Cir.1976), stated that a movant for a continuance must show, inter alia, that the desired witness is “willing to testify.” However, that language is conspicuously absent in a more recent Eleventh Circuit decision, Dickerson v. Alabama, 667 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 878, 103 S.Ct. 173, 74 L.Ed.2d 142 (1982). The whole purpose of compulsory process is to compel an individual to appear in court and testify. While the witness [822]*822may invoke his constitutional right not to testify as to those matters that might tend to incriminate him, he has no other right to simply refuse to testify.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, BEATTY, ADAMS, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 821, 1987 Ala. LEXIS 4539, 1987 WL 1553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-state-ala-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack