Court Opinion

ID: 9931722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:29:15.978986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:42.534714
License: Public Domain

We do not think that it was proper to admit testimony of other crimes. Mason v. State, 259 Ala. 438, 66 So.2d 557, 42 A.L.R.2d 847, is the leading case.
In sexual offenses Brasher v. State, 249 Ala. 96,30 So.2d 31, lays down the principle that offenses committed by accused against third persons merely tending to show disposition, inclination, propensity or depravity, does not come within the identity exception to the general rule against admissibility of proof of other crimes.
Brasher, supra, was expressly referred to in Durham v. State,287 Ala. 731, 250 So.2d 696, in the Chief Justice's dissenting opinion. From that reference we consider that our senior brethren approved again the Brasher rationale. In Noble v. State, 253 Ala. 519, 45 So.2d 857, Foster, J., wrote, in part:
 "So that we are now distinctly in the status of holding that there must be something in the two cases to show a relevant connection such as some peculiarity in them applicable to defendant not generally obtaining, or some relevancy to the pending issue other than to show the moral delinquency of defendant." [Italics added.]
Judge Almon and I consider that the wished-for relevant connection is not here present. Respectfully we dissent.
Finally:
 "The worst wretch that walks the earth is entitled to a fair trial, for the law is superior to all persons. As much as we may regret some results of the law, the law must be preserved if this constitutional democracy is to survive." Watts v. State, 282 Ala. 245, 210 So.2d 805.