Case Title: Ex Parte Reeves

Citation: 463 So. 2d 177

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1984-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
463 So. 2d 177 (1984)
Ex Parte James Robert REEVES.
(Re: James Robert Reeves v. State)
83-1222.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 7, 1984.
*178 M.A. Marsal, Mobile, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Michael A. Bownes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
SHORES, Justice.
James Robert Reeves was indicted for the shooting murder of Melvin Price. The jury found him guilty of criminally negligent homicide, and the Court of Criminal Appeals, 463 So. 2d 174, affirmed. Reeve's petition for writ of certiorari was granted.
At trial, the defendant attempted to call Ernest Trehern as a witness. Trehern was present at the scene of the shooting and had also been indicted on charges arising from that shooting. Upon the advice of his attorney, Trehern informed the trial court, outside the presence of the jury, that he wished to invoke his privilege, under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, not to testify. His request not to testify was granted, even though he had not been asked a single question by the defendant.
The defendant argued that this was error, and the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that Trehern should have been required to take the stand in the presence of the jury and invoked his privilege in response to any question asked by the defendant which would have elicited incriminating evidence if answered. However, after correctly stating the law in this respect, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defendant did not sufficiently preserve the error for review, writing, "Since defense counsel made no offer of proof, this issue is not properly preserved for our review." We disagree and reverse and remand.
It is apparent from the record that the defendant's counsel did everything possible to preserve the error. He clearly excepted to the trial judge's ruling and claimed the right to put on evidence to establish that Trehern's testimony would have been material to the defense. His efforts to preserve the error are evident from the following exchange, which took place outside of the presence of the jury:
The reliance on Gwin v. State, 425 So. 2d 500 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), cert. quashed, 425 So. 2d 510 (Ala.1983), by the Court of Criminal Appeals is misplaced. Gwin correctly states that law concerning the necessity that an offer of proof be made to show that the expected testimony of a witness would not be incriminating in order to predicate error upon a trial court's refusal to compel the witness to testify. In this case, however, the defendant made every attempt to make such an offer of proof, but was repeatedly cut off by the trial judge in his effort.
We hold, therefore, that the trial court's error was preserved for review on appeal and, accordingly, reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the cause for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All the Justices concur.