Court Opinion

ID: 9527224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:28:42.53369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.024987
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Faulkner properly states the sole issue for *249our consideration is whether the trial court’s ruling in sustaining objections to certain questions asked of a witness regarding his possible prejudice or bias constituted reversible error.
As this court recently held in Ex parte Wells (In re Wells, Alias v. State), [1973] 292 Ala. 256, 292 So.2d 471, viz :
“It thus appears to be our rule that, notwithstanding the range of cross-examination to develop bias is largely discretionary, where the witness’ testimony is important to the determination of the issues being tried, there is little, if any, discretion in the trial judge to disallow cross-examination on matters which tend to indicate the bias of the witness.”
The Court of Criminal Appeals also appears to have recognized this to be the rule of our cases in its opinion in this cause. McMullian, alias v. State (1973), 52 Ala.App. 321, 292 So.2d 127. In that opinion, the court held the trial court’s ruling was erroneous.
The question is did the trial court’s ruling constitute reversible error or was it mere “harmless error” under Rule 45 ? As we pointed out in Wells, supra, the Court of Criminal Appeals must resolve this question from a review of the entire record.
This court has repeatedly and consistently refused to review on certiorari the application of the harmless error rule by the courts of appeal unless the opinion of the court of appeals sets forth a statement of the facts which authorizes such review. Powell v. State, 224 Ala. 584, 141 So. 260; Bishop v. State, 226 Ala. 147, 145 So. 499; Tortomasi v. State, 238 Ala. 253, 189 So. 905; Brown v. State, 249 Ala. 412, 31 So. 2d 684; Green v. State, 252 Ala. 129, 40 So.2d 110; Fortenberry v. State, 254 Ala. 342, 48 So.2d 264; Shouse v. State, 258 Ala. 499, 63 So.2d 728; Shiflett v. State, 265 Ala. 652, 93 So.2d 526; Powell v. State, 267 Ala. 100, 100 So.2d 46; Ellis v. State, 267 Ala. 235, 100 So.2d 732; Wallis v. State, 267 Ala. 378, 102 So.2d 31; Luker v. State, 268 Ala. 346, 105 So.2d 845; Jones v. City of Huntsville, 288 Ala. 242, 259 So.2d 288; Russellville Gas Co. v. Duggar, 288 Ala. 309, 260 So.2d 395.
We do not consider the statement in the Court of Criminal Appeal’s opinion, viz: “The rulings do not constitute harmless error because of reversals in similar cases” to constitute an application by it of the “harmless error” doctrine.
It is, therefore, that we must conclude, as we did in Wells, supra, that this cause must be remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for its determination as to whether the sustaining of the objections herein constituted “harmless error.”
Remanded with directions.
HEFLIN, C. J., and COLEMAN, HAR-WOOD, BLOODWORTH and McCALL, JJ-, concur.
MERRILL, MADDOX and FAULKNER, JJ., dissent.
JONES, J., not sitting.