Opinion ID: 1873385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Introduction of Evidence of Witnesses given at Former Trial

Text: Counsel for appellant argues that the court erred in permitting the evidence of three witnesses who testified at Tiner's first trial to be introduced in evidence in the present trial over his objection. The authenticity of the transcript of the evidence of the first trial was stipulated. The evidence shows that all three of these witnesses were residents of either Florida or Texas at the time of the second trial. Our rule is that upon proper proof of the absence from this jurisdiction of a witness who has previously appeared and testified under oath before a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, then such previous testimony may be received in evidence in a subsequent re-trial of the same case. Washington v. State, 274 Ala. 386, 148 So.2d 206, and numerous authorities cited therein. There is no merit in this asserted claim of error.