Mainor v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Mainor v. State

348 So. 2d 1091, 1977 Ala. LEXIS 1778

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJuly 29, 1977

DocketSC 2598

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 348 So. 2d 1091 (Mainor 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.

Bluebook

Mainor v. State, 348 So. 2d 1091, 1977 Ala. LEXIS 1778 (Ala. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

SHORES, Justice.

In denying this writ, we do not wish to be considered as agreeing fully with the statement of the Court of Criminal Appeals which classified the references to the earlier shooting as immaterial. The state’s evidence to the effect that defendant had shot into the house earlier appears to have been improper rebuttal. Had this evidence been offered in the state’s case in brief, however, it may have been relevant and material either on the issue of identity or to negate accident. If the case is retried, we do not apprehend that the prosecution will confuse the applicable rules of substantive evidence with those governing impeachment by proof of a prior self-contradictory statement.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHORES, Justice.

In denying this writ, we do not wish to be considered as agreeing fully with the statement of the Court of Criminal Appeals which classified the references to the earlier shooting as immaterial. The state’s evidence to the effect that defendant had shot into the house earlier appears to have been improper rebuttal. Had this evidence been offered in the state’s case in brief, however, it may have been relevant and material either on the issue of identity or to negate accident. If the case is retried, we do not apprehend that the prosecution will confuse the applicable rules of substantive evidence with those governing impeachment by proof of a prior self-contradictory statement.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 So. 2d 1091, 1977 Ala. LEXIS 1778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mainor-v-state-ala-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack