# Ex Parte Hutcherson

> Supreme Court of Alabama · February 23, 1996 · 677 So. 2d 1205

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935410

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Larry Eugene Hutcherson. (Re Larry Eugene Hutcherson v. State).
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** February 23, 1996
- **Citations:** 677 So. 2d 1205; 1996 WL 77600
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Butts
- **Judges:** Butts, Kennedy
- **Cited by:** 59 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935410

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that even if the witness was an accomplice and testified for the State, “there was more than sufficient evidence to corroborate his testimony; therefore, no reversible error would have occurred. Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); Gurley v. State, 639 So.…
- holding that even if witness was an accomplice and testified for the State, “there was more than sufficient evidence to corroborate his testimony; therefore, no reversible error would have occurred. Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); Gurley v. State, 639 So.2d 5…
- noting that “a prison uniform is merely another symbol that an accused is in police custody” and a “brief and inadvertent confrontation” between the jury and the accused is an insufficient showing of prejudice to warrant a mistrial
- holding that the erroneous admission of DNA evidence is never harmless

## Opinion text

I respectfully dissent. The majority states that "[t]he prejudicial impact of both DNA 'matching' evidence and DNA population frequency statistics creates such a possibility for prejudicial impact upon the jury that the admission of DNA evidence without complying with [ Ex parte Perry , 586 So.2d 242
(Ala. 1991),] can never be harmless error." 677 So.2d at 1209 (emphasis added). I do not agree that DNA evidence is, in every case, so patently prejudicial that its admission will be automatic reversible error if the State fails to strictly comply with Perry in every respect. Rather, I believe that the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly adopted the reasoning of the Arizona Supreme Court as set out in State v. Bible , 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152 (1993), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1578 , 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994), in determining that any error in establishing the admissibility of DNA evidence may be found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the other evidence of guilt is patently overwhelming.
I have thoroughly studied the record and find overwhelming evidence indicating that Larry Eugene Hutcherson committed the crimes for which he was charged. I would therefore hold that any error in admitting DNA evidence in this case was harmless, and I would uphold the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance of Hutcherson's conviction and sentence.
MADDOX, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935410. Public record. Not legal advice.