Elliott v. State
| Decision Date | 24 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 745 |
| Citation | 266 So.2d 321,289 Ala. 742 |
| Parties | In re Herbert ELLIOTT v. STATE. In re Lonnie JOHNSON v. STATE. In re Calvin MEANS v. STATE. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL. -747. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to Court of Criminal Appeals.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., Don C. Dickert and David W. Clark, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
No brief for respondent.
Petitions of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Elliott v. State, Johnson v. State, and Means v. State, 48 Ala.App. 515, 266 So.2d 318.
Writs denied.
In concurring that the writs be denied I do not wish to be understood as approving or disapproving the language used, or the statements of law contained in the Opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in these cases. See Cooper v. State, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108. However, it appears to me that there were one or more reasons why each case should have been reversed, therefore, I would deny the writs.
I concur in the decision to deny the writs in these three cases. I need not give the reasons which prompt me to join in the decision, though I am not convinced that if we reviewed the Court of Criminal Appeals, the result would be any different from the one which that court reached.
However, I am convinced that serious questions have been raised by the State's petitions as to the correctness of the context in which several of the trial court's rulings arose. This prompts me to make the following observations.
I continue to adhere to the views which I expressed in Wilbanks v. State (1972), 289 Ala. 171, 266 So.2d 632, and in which decision a majority of this court joined.
In Wilbanks, supra, the Court of Criminal Appeals had reversed the trial court on grounds, inter alia, "that error is made to appear in overruling objection to asking Mrs. Wilbanks as to whether or not she and her husband had stayed away from Barbara King's funeral." We reversed.
The argument was made that we could not go to the full record to determine the context in which the objection arose. We rejected this argument. We held, viz:
* * *
* * *
"It seems to us it would create an absurdity, as well as perpetuate a grave miscarriage of justice, were we to affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision, as the dissent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. State
...Hallet[t] Mfg. Co., 198 Ala. 609, 73 So. 938 (1916). See also Elliot[t] v. State, 48 Ala.App. 515, 266 So.2d 318, cert. denied, 289 Ala. 742, 266 So.2d 321 (1972); Haynes v. State, 40 Ala.App. 106, 109 So.2d 738 (1958), cert. denied, 268 Ala. 546, 109 So.2d 746 (1959). Thus, the trial court......
-
Hubbard v. State
...(1901); Flint v. State, 370 So.2d 332, 335 (Ala.Cr.App.1979); Elliott v. State, 48 Ala.App. 515, 266 So.2d 318, cert. denied, 289 Ala. 742, 266 So.2d 321 (1972); Wilson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 137, 101 So. 417, cert. denied, Ex parte Wilson, 211 Ala. 613, 101 So. 423 (1924). A witness may not......
-
Flint v. State
...a conclusion and is invasive of the jury's province." Elliott v. State, 48 Ala.App. 515, 517, 266 So.2d 318, 320, cert. denied, 289 Ala. 742, 266 So.2d 321 (1972). III We have reviewed the evidence and find that it is sufficient to support the conviction for murder in the first Here the bod......
-
Warden v. State
...v. State, 56 Ala.App. 174, 177, 320 So.2d 107 (1975); Elliott v. State, 48 Ala.App. 515, 517, 266 So.2d 318, cert. denied, 289 Ala. 742, 266 So.2d 321 (1972); Berry v. State, 46 Ala.App. 308, 309-10, 241 So.2d 336 (1970); Burrow v. State, 23 Ala.App. 99, 121 So. 449 The mere fact that the d......