Arthur v. State
This text of 575 So. 2d 1191 (Arthur v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Ex parte State of Alabama.
(Re Thomas Douglas ARTHUR
v.
STATE).
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Andy S. Poole and William D. Little, Asst. Attys. Gen., for petitioner.
William Hovater, Tuscumbia, and H. Alan Gargis, Muscle Shoals, for respondent.
Prior report: Ala.Cr.App., 575 So.2d 1165.
PER CURIAM.
WRIT DENIED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, ADAMS and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
HOUSTON, STEAGALL and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent.
HOUSTON, Justice (dissenting).
I think that this case is distinguishable from Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988). I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
STEAGALL, J., concurs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
575 So. 2d 1191, 1991 WL 32293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-v-state-ala-1991.