From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General

Supreme Court of Alabama
Aug 19, 1977
348 So. 2d 857 (Ala. 1977)

Summary

In Randolph v. State, 348 So.2d at 863-64, this court reversed the defendant's conviction because the trial court had failed to specifically instruct the jury that the prior inconsistent testimony of the State's primary witness, which had been offered for impeachment purposes, could not be considered as substantive evidence.

Summary of this case from Hooper v. State

Opinion

SC 2698.

August 19, 1977.

Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 348 So.2d 858.


WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General

Supreme Court of Alabama
Aug 19, 1977
348 So. 2d 857 (Ala. 1977)

In Randolph v. State, 348 So.2d at 863-64, this court reversed the defendant's conviction because the trial court had failed to specifically instruct the jury that the prior inconsistent testimony of the State's primary witness, which had been offered for impeachment purposes, could not be considered as substantive evidence.

Summary of this case from Hooper v. State
Case details for

Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Aug 19, 1977

Citations

348 So. 2d 857 (Ala. 1977)
348 So. 2d 857

Citing Cases

Hooper v. State

"Now, the prior testimony of [the prosecutrix] given in September of 1985 while she was under oath and…

Clay v. State

In Ex parte Mutrie, 658 So.2d 347, 350 (Ala. 1993), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: "In Hill v. State, 348…