Ex parte Dolvin

Decision Date12 September 1980
Citation391 So.2d 677,18 A.L.R.4th 1288
PartiesEx parte Sue DOLVIN. (Re: Sue Dolvin v. State of Alabama). 79-175.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Jerry R. Knight, Decatur, for petitioner.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., Thomas R. Allison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 666 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). The main issue presented for our consideration is whether the trial court erred in permitting a forensic odontologist to testify that in his opinion a skeleton found in Seminole County, Florida, was that of Charles Ray Lovett, based on a comparison of the skeletal teeth with inter vivos photographs of Charles Ray Lovett.

The facts as found in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals are as follows: On the night of August 16, 1970, Charles Ray Lovett mysteriously disappeared from his home in Decatur. Seven years later a skeleton was found in Seminole County, Florida. The state indicted Mrs. Dolvin for Lovett's murder, and at trial introduced into evidence, over her objection, the testimony of a forensic odontologist who compared the skeletal teeth found in Seminole County, Florida, with two inter vivos photographs of Lovett in an attempt to show that the skeleton was that of Charles Ray Lovett. The petitioner was convicted of the murder of Charles Ray Lovett and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

On March 13, 1970, defendant's husband, Glenn Dolvin, was indicted for the theft of Lovett's automobile. It was the State's theory at trial that Lovett was kidnapped and murdered by Sue Dolvin and Glenn Dolvin in order to prevent Lovett from testifying at Glenn Dolvin's larceny trial. The evidence presented against Sue Dolvin was stronger than the evidence presented against Glenn Dolvin in the following two respects: Miss Debbie Garrett testified that on the night of Lovett's disappearance, August 16, 1970, she had seen and identified as Sue Dolvin, a woman who was driving a Volkswagen up and down the street on which Lovett lived. Miss Garrett testified that there were two men in the car with the woman, but she was unable to identify those two men. Secondly, there was evidence from Florida Highway Patrolman Clarence Simpson, who testified that around 1:00 a. m. on August 18, 1970, Sue Dolvin came into the highway patrol station at Ocala, Florida, and signed a lost-tag form. The officer said that Mrs. Dolvin had smudges all over her and that her fingernails and clothes were very dirty and she appeared as if she had been camping in the woods. The skeletal remains alleged to be those of the deceased were found in Seminole County, Florida, not far from Ocala. The facts of the instant case are set out more extensively in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

On January 26, 1979, Glenn Dolvin, the petitioner's husband, was convicted of the offense of murder in the first degree of Charles Ray Lovett. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and rendered the trial court's judgment, holding: "Our review of the evidence leaves no doubt that the defendant was convicted on speculation, suspicion, and conjecture. The judgment is therefore reversed." Glenn Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 129 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). We reversed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 133 (Ala.1980).

Petitioner contends that the trial court erred to reversal insofar as it held admissible expert opinion testimony of Dr. Richard Souviron, a forensic odontologist, concerning identification of skeletal remains founded upon his comparison of the skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs of the victim. Dr. Souviron compared facial structure, occlusion, and the shape of teeth and jaw of a human skull found in Seminole County, Florida, with those of Charles Ray Lovett, as depicted in the inter vivos photographs taken of Lovett.

The seminal case establishing the safeguard against admission into evidence of facts gleaned from an unreliable scientific test is Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). In Frye, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that a systolic blood pressure lie detector test had "not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made." 293 F. at 1014. The rule as stated by that court is as follows:

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923).

Since the lie detector test has not gained the required acceptance in the intervening fifty-seven years, length of existence is clearly not determinative in ascertaining the admissibility of a scientific test. Factors which are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 cases
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 31, 1983
    ...publicity alone does not entitle a defendant to a change of venue." Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 666, 674 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), affirmed, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980). Here, there was no showing that the publicity either prejudiced any individual juror or caused pervasive hostility within the commun......
  • Peoples v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 27, 1986
    ...883 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Hopkins v. State, 429 So.2d 1146 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 666 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), aff'd, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980). The fact that there was widespread publicity is not sufficient to require a change of venue. Thomas v. State, 452 So.2d 899 (Ala.Cr.A......
  • Anderson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 14, 1987
    ...court's denial of a motion for continuance will not be reversed. Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 666, 674-75 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), affirmed, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980); Turk v. State, 348 So.2d 878, 880 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). The record indicates that the prospective jurors indicated that despite their k......
  • Boggan v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 22, 1984
    ...So.2d 1180 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 1187 (Ala.1980); Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 666 (Ala.Crim.App.1979), affirmed, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980); Johnson v. State, 406 So.2d 446 The appellant argues further that swabbings of blood-stains on his forearms and his blood-stained clot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Circuit Criminal Trial and Evidence Practice Pointers
    • United States
    • Alabama State Bar Alabama Lawyer No. 82-1, January 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...Revis v. State, 101 So.3d 247 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).25. Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala. 2000).26. Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala. 1980).27. Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).28. West v. State, 793 So.2d 870 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).29. Stewart ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT