identity would be at issue if the defendant had argued that “someone else committed the acts with which he was charged,” instead of denying that the acts ever occurred
How later courts described this case
- identity would be at issue if the defendant had argued that “someone else committed the acts with which he was charged,” instead of denying that the acts ever occurred
- “In a prosecution for one offense, evidence of collateral crimes or acts is generally inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused.”(footnote omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by Bowden v. State, 538 So. 2d 1226 (1988)
only three years prior thereto, and the later failed attempt inEx parte Durham to deal with the problem, further served to cast doubt on the controlling effect of the broadly worded resolution offered by the Court in Anonymous.
The opinion
When the writ was granted, I was of the opinion that the Court of Criminal Appeals probably had incorrectly relied upon this Court's decision in Lee v. State , 246 Ala. 69 , 18 So.2d 706 (1944), in reversing this defendant's conviction. Arguably, the Lee case is distinguishable upon its facts, but, after further study, I am of the opinion that it is not so distinguishable that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals reversing the conviction on that ground is due to be reversed.
Consequently, I would quash the writ as having been improvidently granted.
TORBERT, C.J. and STEAGALL, J., concur. *Page 976