Court Opinion

ID: 9693976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:14:09.521581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:53.436721
License: Public Domain

*417On Rehearing.
The foregoing part of this opinion was prepared with reference to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Strickland v. State, Ala. Sup.1959, 114 So.2d 407,1 and we discerned a distinguishing principle in the facts established by the record in this case.
Mainly, the Supreme Court’s decision holds that the admission of evidence concerning civil settlements and purported subornation was proper because certain testimony came as a surprise to the solicitor. There was a diametric variance between the testimony given by the two Crenshaws the first day of the trial and what they had stated to the grand jury.
Here, however, the first trial had passed into history, and surely any attempt at a change in testimony could not fall under surprise. Therefore, the ordinary rule of criminal evidence excluding testimony concerning civil settlements should prevail.
Application overruled.

. 269 Ala. 573.