W. SHOCKLEY v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

W. SHOCKLEY v. State

335 So. 2d 663

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJuly 2, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 335 So. 2d 663 (W. SHOCKLEY 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

W. SHOCKLEY v. State, 335 So. 2d 663 (Ala. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant Shockley's conviction for assault with intent to murder was reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, 58 Ala. App. ___, 335 So.2d 659, because Shockley was effectively denied the right to confront a witness, an alleged accomplice, who was called by the prosecution and asked several questions, but who refused to answer any questions. We granted certiorari to review the judgment.

After review, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be affirmed.

The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the defendant, Shockley, "did not invite or instigate the refusal" of the accomplice to testify; consequently, the case is controlled byDouglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965), a strikingly similar case.

AFFIRMED.

JONES, SHORES, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant Shockley's conviction for assault with intent to murder was reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, 58 Ala. App. ___, 335 So.2d 659, because Shockley was effectively denied the right to confront a witness, an alleged accomplice, who was called by the prosecution and asked several questions, but who refused to answer any questions. We granted certiorari to review the judgment.

After review, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be affirmed.

The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the defendant, Shockley, "did not invite or instigate the refusal" of the accomplice to testify; consequently, the case is controlled byDouglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965), a strikingly similar case.

AFFIRMED.

JONES, SHORES, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

335 So. 2d 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-shockley-v-state-ala-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack