587 So. 2d 1053 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1991
The appellant was charged in a two-count indictment with unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of §
The record indicates that during the State's case-in-chief, Alcohol Beverage Control agent, Al Gardner, testified that he had been informed by patrons of the Warehouse Club that the appellant had a reputation for dealing in cocaine. Another police officer testified that he had received information that the bouncers at the Warehouse Club had been engaged in the sale of cocaine and also that they had been involved in some assaults outside the club. The testimony of both officers was offered after the appellant's counsel stated, during his opening argument, that he would be asserting the defense of entrapment.
Based upon the authority of Lambeth v. State,
On certiorari review, the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in affirming the decision of this Court but approached the case from a different angle, addressing the issue of whether hearsay evidence can be admitted to establish predisposition when the defendant has raised the defense of entrapment. The Supreme Court concluded that "when an accused has raised the defense of entrapment, hearsay is admissible to prove predisposition only according to the customary rules of evidence." Lambeth, 562 So.2d at 579. The Court relied upon the decision in United States v. Webster,
Recently, this Court has applied Lambeth in reversing a judgment in a case in which an individual was convicted of one count of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. SeeHaynes v. State,
The evidence in the instant case is similar to that presented in Haynes and Lambeth. As mentioned earlier, one police officer was allowed to testify as to hearsay statements concerning the appellant in particular and any propensity he may have had for dealing in drugs. Additionally, another witness was allowed to testify as to the reputation of the club where the appellant worked and its bouncers, which appellant was, for drug use. Both of these types of testimony are clearly within the parameters of Haynes and Lambeth and are, therefore, inadmissible.
Based on the foregoing, we pretermit discussion of all other issues raised by the appellant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All Judges concur.