Court Opinion

ID: 9680035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:17:23.945762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:24.797414
License: Public Domain

BLOODWORTH, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the decision to deny the writs in these three cases. I need not give the reasons which prompt me to join in the decision, though I am not convinced that if we reviewed the Court of Criminal Appeals, the result would be any different from the one which that court reached.
However, I am convinced that serious questions have been raised by the State’s petitions as to the correctness of the context in which several of the trial court’s rulings arose. This prompts me to make the following observations.
I continue to adhere to the views which I expressed in Wilbanks v. State (1972), 289 Ala. 171, 266 So.2d 632, and in which decision a majority of this court joined.
In Wilbanks, supra, the Court of Criminal Appeals had reversed the trial court on grounds, inter alia, “that error is made to appear in overruling objection to asking Mrs. Wilbanks as to whether or not she and her husband had stayed away from Barbara' King’s funeral.” We reversed.
The argument was made that we could not go to the full record to determine the context in which the objection arose. We rejected this argument. We held, viz:
“ * * * Since no ruling was made by the trial court, there is, of course, an absence of reversible error.
“Clearly, the full record speaks for itself in this instance, and what it reveals with respect to the point in issue cannot be made the subject of dispute.
*743“It seems to us it would create an absurdity, as well as perpetuate a grave miscarriage of justice, were we to affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision, as the dissent suggests we do, when we know, as a matter of fact, that court’s opinion is based upon a misconception as to what actually transpired in the trial court with respect to the error charged.” [Our emphasis]
It is perhaps redundant to add that the denial of a writ, or writs as the case may be, does not indicate this court’s approval of the Courts of Appeals’ decisions.
HARWOOD, J., concurs.