Cowan v. State

The record indicates that Maurice Co-wan was never denied his right to testify at trial, although he elected not to do so, and that evidence concerning his contact with the juror was not introduced during the trial. Therefore, Cowan’s argument that he was induced by the State not to testify was not preserved for appellate review either by his motions in limine, see Davis v. State, 620 So.2d 136 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), citing Parks v. State, 587 So.2d 1012 (Ala.1991), or by his motion for a new trial, see Hamrick v. State, 548 So.2d 652 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). Furthermore, although the trial court’s…