Court Opinion

ID: 9695474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:20:34.986452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:13.095714
License: Public Domain

CATES, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
I concur in Parts II, III and IV of my brother Tyson’s opinion.
However,, as ..to Part .1, I consider that Code 1940, T. 45, § 226 cannot be used by the doctors of the State’s insane hospitals as a refugefrom compulsory attendance as witnesses (after subpoena) in a criminal prosecution. The deposition called for in § 226 requires consent of the defendant.
First, the State Constitution — as well as the Federal — gives the defendant the right of compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses. Our statute for attendance of witnesses (T. 7, § 448) extends the reach of a subpoena (under conditions) to the length and breadth of the State. The *402right to compulsory process is elaborated on in McElroy, Evidence (2d ed.) § 338.01.
Since the trial judge expressly stated that § 226, supra, was “no good in criminal cases” — with which I agree — that section is not good authority on which to hang our decision in this case.
Here, I think that since the defendant failed to file the affidavit required by Code 1940, T. 7, § 448, he was not entitled to a subpoena for a witness residing more than 100 miles from Birmingham.
Hence, I would substitute the foregoing for Part I of Judge Tyson’s opinion.