Title: Lloyd v. State
Citation: 304 So. 2d 235
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: November 27, 1974

304 So. 2d 235 (1974)
In re Johnnie Frank LLOYD, alias
v.
STATE of Alabama. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
SC 1049.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 27, 1974.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and John M. Gruenewald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, petitioner.
No brief for respondent.
*236 BLOODWORTH, Justice.
The State of Alabama, by and through the Attorney General, has sought, by application for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, our review and reversal of that court's judgment of reversal in Lloyd, Alias v. State [1974], 53 Ala.App. 730, 304 So. 2d 232. The application is denied.
The grounds upon which the application is sought is "a case of first impression." In the application it is stated:
The application is due to be denied for the reason, if for no other, that it is not a case of first impression. In a long line of decisions since at least 1887, eighty-seven years ago, this Court has been committed to the proposition:
In a more recent decision in Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586, 179 So. 2d 714 (1965) (per Lawson, J.), this Court held:
Further, we have held it to be reversible error for the trial court to deny defendant counsel the right to cross-examine the witness *237 on voir dire with reference to the circumstances of the confession, viz.:
The obvious reason for the rule is stated in Lokos v. State, supra:
See also: Howard v. State, 44 Ala.App. 595, 217 So. 2d 548 (1969); Young v. State, 41 Ala.App. 284, 130 So. 2d 249 (1961); Hunter v. State, 38 Ala.App. 351, 83 So. 2d 737 (1955).
See State v. Wilbanks, 289 Ala. 166, 266 So. 2d 619 (1970) relating to the right of voir dire in circumstances other than confessions.
It is therefore that we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the trial judge committed reversible error in cutting off and denying defense counsel the opportunity to further cross-examine on voir dire the deputy sheriff who had testified to an inculpatory statement allegedly made by defendant and overheard by the deputy sheriff.
Writ denied.
HEFLIN, C. J., and COLEMAN, McCALL and JONES, JJ., concur.