Opinion

Cate v. State

  • 134 So. 3d 870
  • 2013 WL 3154013
Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Filed
Jun 21, 2013
Status
Published
Author
Murdock
On the bench
Bolin, Bryan, Main, Moore, Murdock, Parker, Shaw, Stuart, Wise
Cited by
2 cases

The opinion

MURDOCK, Justice

(concurring in the result).

I question the statement in the main opinion that “[§ ] 15-16-22(a)[, Ala.Code 1975,] does not grant the trial court discretion to order a defendant to submit to a mental examination independent of the procedural framework of Rule 11.2(a) [, Ala. R. Crim. P.].” 134 So.3d at 875 (emphasis added). I believe the dispositive question in the present case is whether notice of intention to use a mental disease or defect in the mitigation phase of a capital-murder trial is notice of intent to use that mental disease or defect “as a defense to criminal responsibility.” Because I do not read the statute as providing an affirmative answer to this question, I concur in the result.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.