The judge. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email. The defendants claimed qualified privilege in that the statements complained of were contained in a report prepared by it in fulfilment of its. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions.
The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs. Held: A person including a corporation whose character or conduct has been attacked is entitled to answer the attack, and the answer will be protected by. They had discussed the detention of the claimant under suspicion of theft at the airport, and claimed. Acting on behalf of his client the solicitor defendant was said to have called a journalist and defamed the claimant.
They were not present when the shooting occurred. In sum, appellant testified that the State witnesses who said he shot the victim were simply lying and that it was all a frame-up. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial alleging, among other grounds, that the evidence failed to prove the elements of assault with intent to murder. To sustain a conviction for assault with intent to murder, the evidence must establish an assault with the intent to take life; which, had the assault resulted in the victim's death, would have constituted murder.
Malice is a necessary element. Hamm v. State, 56 Ala. The necessary elements of intent and malice, in a prosecution for assault with intent to murder, can be inferred from the act of using a deadly weapon.
McLaren Transport Ltd v Somerville - Wikipedia
Roberts v. State, 49 Ala. Here, the evidence presented by the State showed that appellant shot William E. Gosa from a distance of twenty feet with a pistol. Gosa was struck in the side. Hospital records of William Gosa were admitted in evidence without objection. Those records show that Gosa's wound necessitated repair of stomach lacerations and the removal of his spleen. It is relevant to show the extent of the victim's wounds as tending to prove the severity of the injuries and the intent with which they were inflicted.
Dixon v. State, 57 Ala. This evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction, though he testified that he did not fire the shot. Conflicting evidence is always a jury question to determine. Prior to trial, appellant moved that a transcript of the testimony before the Grand Jury be produced for his examination. The Court denied this motion.
The State's attorney then told appellant that the testimony of the witnesses before the Grand Jury is not transcribed. Appellant contends that he was entitled to discovery of the Grand Jury proceedings.
He relies on Dennis v. United States, U. That decision holds that where defense counsel shows a "particularized need," he may have access to relevant portions of Grand Jury testimony. A Grand Jury is not required to compile records and the testimony in the absence of statute requiring preservation of the proceedings.
State ex rel. Baxley v. Strawbridge, 52 Ala. There is no such statute in this state. Steward v. State, 55 Ala. In the absence of a transcript, denial of a motion to produce is proper. Steward, supra; Strawbridge, supra; Sparks v. State, 46 Ala. If appellant desired to use Grand Jury testimony to impeach the State's witnesses, he could have done this through a subpoena for the Grand Jurors who sat on the case.
Strawbridge, supra. During the direct examination of the victim, William Gosa, the State's attorney drew a diagram, laying out the scene. All geographical details were filled in under the instructions of the witness. Appellant objected to the State's attorney "laying out the scene.
Sommerville v. State
The trial court's actions in overruling appellant's objections to the diagram and references to the diagram made in closing argument are not before this Court, since the diagram is not contained in the record. Gilliam v. State, 38 Ala.
A thorough search of the record reflects no error injuriously affecting the substantial rights of the appellant. The judgment of conviction is due to be affirmed. I concur in the principal opinion in this cause as prepared by our distinguished Presiding Judge John O. Counsel for the appellant cited to this Court in his brief, Dennis v. Such rule has not been made applicable to state proceedings, nor insofar as has been cited to this Court, no opinion has been made known to us that such "particularized need" rises to the stature of a federally protected constitutional right.
This Court has several times noted that transcripts of Grand Jury testimony, tapes of Grand Jury testimony, or other proceedings before the Grand Jury which are by statute in Alabama secret, may not be made the subject of pretrial disclosures.
Thigpen v. Archer, Ala. State Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Enter your email. Sommerville v. State Annotate this Case. Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. June 20, Rehearing Denied July 25, Orzell Billingsley, Jr. Brown, Jr.