Court Opinion

ID: 9667331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:42:44.145529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:37.111461
License: Public Domain

HEFLIN, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
The majority decision is based upon the supposition that the jury, had the death penalty not been available to them as an alternative punishment, would have sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment. With all deference, I do not believe the majority possesses such occult power. I, therefore, concur in the dissenting opinion authored by Justice Coleman, save one portion of his dissent which would allow the introduction of the transcript into evidence at the penalty trial.
I believe that our present law regarding the introduction of a transcript of a former trial should apply to the penalty trial just as it would in any other situation. Before the former testimony is admissible, *126proof must be made to the trial judge that the personal attendance of the witness at court is not procurable.
The following causes of non-production of the witness are sufficient: that the witness is dead; that the witness is permanently or indefinitely absent from Alabama; that the witness cannot be found after diligent search; that the witness is in the military service in time of war; that the opponent has caused the witness to be absent; that the witness is now insane; that the witness has become disqualified by facts occurring subsequent to the former trial, and the party now offering the former testimony is not responsible for such disqualification; or that the witness now avails himself of a privilege not to testify. 2 J. McElroy, Law of Evidence in Alabama, Section 245.07(8) (2d Ed. 1962).
The introduction of the transcript into evidence at the penalty trial should further be qualified according to the best evidence rules. See 2 J. McElroy, Law of Evidence in Alabama, Section 235.02 (2d Ed. 1962).