Court Opinion

ID: 9938556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:03:28.383209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:10.503742
License: Public Domain

I concur only in the result reached by the majority — that the conviction is due to be affirmed.
In Part II, the majority stated: "The prosecution could not have produced the statement at an earlier time since it was not aware of the statement. See e.g., Stephens v. State,451 So.2d 402 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984)." In this case, the knowledge of patrolman Moye must be imputed to the district attorney as was done in Patton v. State, 530 So.2d 886, 889 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988).Stephens does not support the majority's position because that case involved a writing in the possession of the sister of a state's witness. *Page 1256