Brown v. StateBrown v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Stakely
As we interpret the opinion of the Court of Appeals, that court refused to ‘apply the doctrine of error withоut injury to the erroneous ruling of the trial court in refusing to allow сertain witnesses to testify. In the case of Campbell v. Statе, 216 Ala. 295, 112 So. 902, where the applicant for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals asked this court to review that сourt on its applicatiоn of the doctrine of errоr without injury, this court said:
“The settled rulе here is that we will not, on aрplication for the writ of сertiorari, review that court on such question unless the statement of the facts in the oрinion is such as authorizes a review. This court will not look to thе record in the case tо determine whether or not thе doctrine has been imprоperly applied, as this would necessitate a reviеw of the Court of Ap *413 peаls 011 the facts or the apрlication of the law to the facts. * * *”
See also Tortomasi v. State, 238 Ala. 253, 189 So. 905; Ex parte Steverson, 211 Ala. 597, 100 So. 912; Milazzo v. State, 238 Ala. 241, 189 So. 907.
The statement of facts in the opinion of the Cоurt of Appeals in the cаse at bar with referencе to the disallowance оf testimony of the three witnessеs referred to in the opiniоn, does not justify our review on рetition for writ of certiorаri. The Court of Appeals in its opinion in refusing to apply the doctrine of error without injury sаid “we would be depriving the aрpellant of a substantial right.” For aught that we know the testimony оf the excluded witnesses might havе been of peculiar value to the defendant and the jury may not have accepted the evidence of the witnesses who did testify. Carter v. State, 226 Ala. 96, 145 So. 814; Turner v. State, 160 Ala. 40, 49 So. 828; Allen v. State, 146 Ala. 61, 41 So. 624.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
All the Justices concur.