Court Opinion

ID: 9677584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:55:49.229686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:56.916600
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Specifically we distinguish the instant case from Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600.
As to the lunacy report’s being inadmissible, we are not aware that the rule ascribed to Benton v. State, 245 Ala. 625, 18 So.2d 428, would necessarily have made the lunacy commission’s report inadmissible under all conditions. See Ward v. State, 44 Ala.App. 229, 206 So.2d 897; and Stinson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 5, 221 So.2d 397.
The other points briefed on application for a rehearing we consider to have been sufficiently covered in the original opinion.
Application overruled.