Title: Ex Parte Snell
Citation: 565 So. 2d 271
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 18, 1990

565 So. 2d 271 (1990)
Ex parte Ronald Clyde SNELL.
Re Ronald Clyde Snell
v.
State.
88-982.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 18, 1990.
*272 Gary A. Hudgins, Dothan, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Robin Blevins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
ADAMS, Justice.
We granted Snell's petition for writ of certiorari in order to clarify an Alabama rule regarding hearsay; specifically, whether Alabama follows the common law; Federal Rule of Evidence 801; the Model Code of Evidence Rule 503(b); or Uniform Rule of Evidence 63(1). The facts pertinent to the issue before us are succinctly set out in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals as follows:
In affirming the conviction, Judge Tyson cited Reeves v. State, 456 So. 2d 1156 (Ala. Crim.App.1984); Smith v. State, 513 So. 2d 1036 (Ala.Crim.App.1987); and Edwards v. State, 502 So. 2d 846 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), for the proposition that the admission of testimony such as that offered in this case was not error because the declarant was present and, therefore, available for cross-examination. 565 So. 2d 265 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989).
In a well-thought-out dissent, Judge Bowen states that the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals appears to depart from the common law rule and he argues that it should not do so without acknowledging that fact. His comments, in pertinent part, are set forth below:
We are not inclined to make the radical change of departing from the common-law precedent, which is firmly established in Alabama. We agree with Judge Bowen's dissent and incorporate into our opinion that portion of it here quoted. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals on the ground that the impermissible hearsay admitted at the trial constituted reversible error, and we remand this case to that court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.