Opinion ID: 1791154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Completion of Partial Evidence

Text: The rule of Logan v. State, 291 Ala. 497, 282 So.2d 898 (1973), which allows one party to introduce otherwise illegal evidence to complete partial evidence introduced by his opponent of a conversation or transaction, is inapplicable to this case, because the defendant's alleged escape from the Georgia penitentiary is not part of the same transaction as the defendant's sister's cutting and dying the defendant's hair. French v. State, 25 Ala.App. 53, 141 So. 713, cert. denied, 225 Ala. 8, 141 So. 717 (1932), held that the same transaction rule does not apply to particulars of former transactions not constituting a part of the res gestae, or tending to shed light on the issues. I believe that the case of Roberson v. State, 233 Ala. 442, 172 So. 250 (1937), controls this case. The Roberson case, which excluded testimony on the ground that the defendant's proffered testimony did not concern the same transaction as the State's testimony, drew a distinction between cause and effect. In Roberson , the State's witness testified to the quarrel between a murder defendant and the deceased. The defendant then tried to introduce testimony that the quarrel immediately followed and resulted from the decedent's allowing his cattle to trample the defendant's crops. The Court held that the alleged trespass of livestock on the defendant's crops leading to the quarrel was a separate transaction from the quarrel even though it resulted in the quarrel. The case before us presents an analogy to Roberson , in that the defendant's alleged escape from the Georgia penitentiary may have been the cause of his sister's cutting and dying his hair, but it was not the same transaction and, therefore, does not come within the Logan rule. Furthermore, without reviewing the entire text of the defendant's sister's testimony, it is not possible to tell whether the defendant's sister's cutting and dying the defendant's hair was even causally related to the alleged escape. I would grant the writ. HEFLIN, C. J., and SHORES, J., concur.