the latter two cases stand for the proposition that the *Page 258 improper introduction of fingerprint evidence may constitute harmless error
How later courts described this case
- the latter two cases stand for the proposition that the *Page 258 improper introduction of fingerprint evidence may constitute harmless error
- the latter two cases stand for the proposition that the improper introduction of fingerprint evidence may constitute harmless error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MADDOX, Justice.
Writ denied.
*242
By denying the writ, we point out that writs of certiorari are frequently denied without any consideration of the merits. Haden v. Olan Mills, Inc., 273 Ala. 129 , 135 So.2d 388 (1961). A denial of certiorari should never be considered as an expression by the reviewing court on the merits of the controversy. See Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers, 240 U.S. 251 , 36 S.Ct. 269 , 60 L.Ed. 629 (1916). Our denial of the writ should not be understood as approving or disapproving the language used, or the statements of law contained in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Cooper v. State, 287 Ala. 728 , 252 So.2d 108 (1971).
HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.