Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

449 So. 2d 798

Docket 82-1191.

Ex Parte Batteaste

Ex parte Patrick BATTEASTE. (Re: Patrick Batteaste v. State of Alabama)

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 3, 1984.

Rehearing Denied, Opinion Modified, March 9, 1984.

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1984-02-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““‘The Court of Criminal Appeals, while acknowledging that it is error to reopen a case and allow presentation of evidence after a case has been submitted to the jury, nevertheless found that granting- the jury’s request to view the appellant’s scar did not amount to a reopening of the evidence .because the appellant had been present throughout the trial and thus the court’s action did not convey any information to the jurors not available during the trial. See Jolly v. State, 405 So.2d 76 (Ala. Cr. App.1981). “ ‘We disagree with the court’s rationale, because where, as here, the evidence relates to the person of the accused, the principle of law in Harnage v. State, 290 Ala. 142 , 274 So.2d 352 (1972), is controlling. In Harnage, the Court ruled that a jury request to view the hands of the defendant, who was charged with murder by strangulation, came too late because the case •had already been presented to the jury and any member of the jury had had the opportunity to observe the defendant’s hands during . the trial, particularly while the defendant was testifying in his own b'ehalf. 290 Ala. at 144 , 274 So.2d at 354 .”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Harris v. State, Harris v. State

“the jury, over objection of the defendant, to view the defendant's face to see if he had a scar on it.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Washington v. United States

Relies on Harnage v. State · 405 So. 2d 76 - Jolly v. State · 449 So. 2d 797 - Batteaste v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-02-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2016

8 state decisions

301984199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*799 John Bertolotti, Jr., Mobile, for petitioner.

¶2J. Anthony McLain and James F. Hampton, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

¶3MADDOX, Justice.

¶4We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 449 So.2d 797, in which the court decided the trial judge did not err when he permitted the jury, over objection of the defendant, to view the defendant's face to see if he had a scar on it.

¶5The Court of Criminal Appeals, while acknowledging that it is error to reopen a case and allow presentation of evidence after a case has been submitted to the jury, nevertheless found that granting the jury's request to view the appellant's scar did not amount to a reopening of the evidence because the appellant had been present throughout the trial and thus the court's action did not convey any information to the jurors not available during the trial. See Jolly v. State,405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Cr. App.1981).

¶6We disagree with the court's rationale, because where, as here, the evidence relates to the person of the accused, the principle of law in Harnage v. State,290 Ala. 142, 274 So.2d 352 (1972), is controlling. In Harnage, the Court ruled that a jury request to view the hands of the defendant, who was charged with murder by strangulation, came too late because the case had already been presented to the jury and any member of the jury had had the opportunity to observe the defendant's hands during the trial, particularly while the defendant was testifying in his own behalf. 290 Ala. at 144, 274 So.2d at 354.

¶7Consequently, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

¶8REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶9TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

¶10

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

¶11MADDOX, Justice.

¶12OPINION MODIFIED, APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.

¶13TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

/449/so2d/798 · .json · Public domain