Court Opinion

ID: 9691135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:13:14.246552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:11.398662
License: Public Domain

CATES, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
As to the conflictual state of Alabama law arising out of Lee v. State, 246 Ala. 69, 18 So.2d 706; Brasher v. State, 249 Ala. 96, 30 So.2d 31 and Durham v. State, 47 Ala.App. 89, 250 So.2d 693, I consider *362that Brasher, supra, is the paramount authority on the narrow point therein decided, i. e., evidence of another sex crime is not relevant unless it is committed with or upon the same person involved in the indictment sub judice. See dissenting opinion of Heflin, C. J., in Durham v. State, 287 Ala. 731, 250 So.2d 696.
Mason v. State, 259 Ala. 438, 66 So.2d 557, 42 A.L.R.2d 847 is the leading case. Departures from it should be carefully weighed. In sex cases, particularly, relevancy can become a quagmire. Noble v. State, 253 Ala. 519, 45 So.2d 857, 859.
As I read the record the trial judge was not called on to rule because no objection was made to the offending questions. Had we been under the Automatic Appeal Act a different question would have been presented. See Echols v. State, 47 Ala.App. 23, 249 So.2d 639.
Hence, I feel we should confine ourselves to only the issues raised below.