Opinion ID: 151087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: State Court's Order Denying Motion For New Trial

Text: The state trial court denied Hall's motion for a new trial. In its order, the state court acknowledged that Taffett's tests revealed that Hall was in the low intelligence segment of the population. As to Hall's challenge to his confession, the state court stated that it had already considered Hall's intelligence and age in its ruling on Hall's motion to suppress and at trial and that this did not render his confession inadmissible: Matters of the defendant's intelligence and age were considered fully at the hearing on the motion to suppress and throughout each of the trials. While an accused's intelligence and literacy are important factors to be considered in determining whether he intelligently and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and made a confession, weak intellect or illiteracy alone will not render a confession inadmissible. As to the ineffective-trial-counsel claim, the state trial court found that Dettmar's testimony as to Hall's alibi defense of being in school would have been cumulative of other evidence presented at trial, including the admission of school records showing attendance, and that it would not have been pertinent given that the crimes occurred after school hours. The state trial court further found that additional alibi witnesses would have been cumulative of the evidence presented at trial through the alibi witnesses Daryl [sic] Hall . . ., John Cartas, Ann Cartas, Jarvis Blockton [sic], and Quinton Armstrong. [32] The state trial court dismissed the remaining claims of ineffective assistance that were based on Smedley's lack of experience, being overworked, and lack of time. The state trial court acknowledged Hall's argument that the jury was left with a false impression regarding the existence of phone records at BellSouth for the day of the crimes and that the two BellSouth witnesses who testified at Hall's second and third trials had since filed affidavits stating that their trial testimony was in error. Quoting the trial transcript, the state court stated, testimony from the trial did not indicate there were no calls, but [rather that] `we have no record of thoseany calls for those days'  (emphasis added). Furthermore, the state court found that the juror who testified at the hearing made it clear that the jury had ignored the evidence of the phone records during its deliberations. Therefore, Hall's claim that the BellSouth evidence left a false impression with the jury was moot. The state trial court found that the other grounds on which Hall had sought a new trial were meritless.