W. SHOCKLEY v. State

335 So. 2d 663
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided July 2, 1976·Published·Cited by 9 cases

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

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

335 So. 2d 663 (W. SHOCKLEY v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boyle v. State
154 So. 3d 171 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2013)
Huff v. State
678 So. 2d 293 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1995)
Garner v. State
606 So. 2d 177 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Terry v. State
540 So. 2d 782 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1988)
Thomas v. State
473 So. 2d 627 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Commonwealth v. Musolino
467 A.2d 605 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
State v. Major
665 P.2d 703 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1983)