Opinion ID: 1898581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions to Produce

Text: As we have shown above, the trial court ordered, in effect, that Smith and his counsel be permitted to inspect the diamonds which had been obtained from Quarles Jewelry Store or Shop in Chattanooga, which were in possession of Sheriff Davis. The right to inspect the diamonds had been sought in Smith's motion to produce, No. 7. The other seven motions sought, in effect, an order or orders requiring the State to produce for the defendant's inspection: All of Investigator Gatlin's notes or memoranda relative to the investigation of, or of this case, that said Investigator has, or may claim, pertaining to this defendant. All reports of Investigator Gatlin to the Circuit or County Solicitor, or to the State Law Enforcement Agency, or to Chief Potts, or to Sheriff Davis. All clothes or materials from which the State undertook to or did make or take fingerprints from relating to the investigation of this case; All fingerprints made in investigation of this case. All recordings, whether tape, record, or otherwise, made of defendant's conversations, or defendant's questioning on Thursday, February 27, 1964, said questioning by Gatlin, Chief Potts and O. W. Brantley; together with questionings that continued into February 28th. Said questionings made in Pike County Courthouse. All tape, record or other recordings of conversations of defendant, or defendant's questioning, made Saturday night, February 29, at Pike County Courthouse; wherein Investigator Gatlin, Chief Potts, and O. W. Brantley were present, or questioning him. Being the same night, if the date is incorrect that Gatlin showed defendant two rings or parts of rings, or mountings; All other recordings of conversations or statements to any of above parties relative to any investigation of this case; Any written statement, or any written note, or any written memoranda, which purports to be memoranda or notes of statements or statement made by this defendant to any of you following, separately and severally: Investigator B. J. Gatlin, Chief Tom Potts, O. W. Brantley, Presley Davis; `Any letters, writings, communications, from defendant to his wife; Any letters, writing, communications from defendant's wife to him; Any of the above that were seized under search warrant issued February 27, 1964; All other things seized under said search warrant pertaining to this defendant, or pertaining to this case. Two rings, or parts of rings, or mountains (sic) placed on table in front of the defendant, by Investigator Gatlin, or by the Chief Potts, or O. W. Brantley, at a questioning of said defendant by said parties, on or about Saturday night after his arrest. Said questioning being in the Pike County Courthouse, and being the first time said parties placed said matters before him. It is contended by appellant that the trial court erred in not granting to him the relief sought in his motions to produce numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Two cases are cited in support of that contention, Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, and Smith v. Pennsylvania, 376 U.S. 354, 84 S.Ct. 763, 11 L.Ed.2d 753. We will not discuss the Brady case, supra, in this opinion. It was considered and held not to be controlling in Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453, 179 So.2d 35, where a trial court had refused to require the State to produce articles many of which were similar to those which the appellant sought to have the State produce in this case. We do not believe the Smith case, supra, is applicable here. That case is somewhat similar to our case of Parsons v. State, 251 Ala. 467, 38 So.2d 209, where we were concerned with the right of a State court to obtain certain articles and reports in the possession of a United States attorney or agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In this case the appellant, the defendant below, undertook to have the trial court order the State to deliver statements, articles or information in the possession of its officials simply for use by the defendant below in the preparation of his defense. It does not even appear that the statements, etc., were sought by the defendant for the purpose of impeachment. We hold that the trial court did not err to a reversal in refusing to award to the defendant below all of the relief prayed for in his motions to produced numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Sanders v. State, supra.