# Cate v. State

> Supreme Court of Alabama · June 21, 2013 · 134 So. 3d 870

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4809814

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex parte Tonya G. CATE. (In re Tonya G. Cate v. State of Alabama)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** June 21, 2013
- **Citations:** 134 So. 3d 870; 2013 WL 3154013
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Murdock
- **Judges:** Bolin, Bryan, Main, Moore, Murdock, Parker, Shaw, Stuart, Wise
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4809814

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4809814. Public record. Not legal advice.