Supreme Court of Alabama, 1987

Goodwin v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided September 18, 1987 · Torbert, Maddox, Almon, Beatty, Adams, Houston, Steagall

516 So. 2d 821; 1987 Ala. LEXIS 4539; 1987 WL 1553 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Powell v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)
Hale v. State (Ala. 2002)
Brown v. State (Ala. 2001)
Crum v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)
Holton v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
Lochli v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
Carr v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Having carefully read and considered the record and briefs of counsel, we conclude that the writ is due to be quashed. However, we do not agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals, 516 So.2d 818 that a defendant must make a showing that a desired witness is “willing to testify” before he is entitled to a continuance. It is true that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281, 1287 (5th Cir. 1976), stated that a movant for a continuance must show, inter alia, that the desired witness is “willing to testify.” However, that language is conspicuously absent in a more recent Eleventh Circuit decision, Dickerson v. Alabama, 667 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 878, 103 S.Ct. 173, 74 L.Ed.2d 142 (1982). The whole purpose of compulsory process is to compel an individual to appear in court and testify. While the witness *822may invoke his constitutional right not to testify as to those matters that might tend to incriminate him, he has no other right to simply refuse to testify.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, BEATTY, ADAMS, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.