Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

514 So. 2d 1049

Ex Parte Lowe

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided July 10, 1987

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1987-07-10

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"[T]he proper inquiry here is not whether evidence of the defendant's guilt is overwhelming but, instead, whether a substantial right of the defendant has or probably has been adversely affected. . . . Overwhelming evidence of guilt does not render prejudicial error harmless under Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P."”

quoted by 8 later decisions, including Naquin v. State, Oddo v. State

“"After reviewing the DNA testimony given in this case, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury on the admissibility of the DNA evidence. We also agree that the State failed to comply with Perry , because there was insufficient testimony concerning the reliability of the test results. Specifically, the testimony from forensic scientist Elaine Scott failed to satisfy the third prong of the Perry test because she did not testify as to the quality controls used by the Mobile laboratory. Additionally, testimony from Roger Morrison failed to sufficiently meet the third prong, because he explained only one type of quality control procedure used and did not testify as to other quality control procedures used except to state generally that quality controls were used. However, we disagree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' application of the harmless error doctrine to the admission of DNA evidence. "`Harmless error' is defined as `an error which is trivial or formal or merely academic and was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party assigning it and in no way affected the final outcome of the case.' Black's Law Dictionary 718 (6th ed.1990). In order to secure a reversal of a judgment, an appellant not only must show error, but also must demonstrate that the error resulted in a substantial injury. Rule 45, A.R.App.P. Overwhelming evidence of guilt does not render prejudicial er”

quoted by 7 later decisions, including Maples v. State, 546 So. 2d 1014 - White v. State

Relies on Green v. State · 507 So. 2d 1351 - Ex Parte Johnson · Goforth v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-07-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably 546 So. 2d 1014 - White v. State (1989), 599 So. 2d 1253 - Carroll v. State (1992)

34 state decisions

2101987199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial as a result of certain errors committed by the trial court. For a statement of the facts see Lowe v. State, 514 So.2d 1042 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986).

¶3The Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that the circumstances surrounding the Birmingham Police Department's internal affairs investigation tended to negate the inference that the defendant fled because of a consciousness of guilt and, therefore, should have been presented to the jury for its consideration. However, the court then went on to hold that the exclusion of this evidence did not prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant, because 1) the defendant was allowed to introduce a "more plausible" reason for his flight (citing Webster v. State, 211 Ala. 519,101 So. 183 (1924)) and 2) the evidence of the defendant's guilt, though circumstantial, was "overwhelming."

¶4The Court of Criminal Appeals' reliance on Webster is misplaced. In that case the defendant's conviction was not reversed because the Court was of the opinion that the defendant had gotten before the jury everything that was relevant and proper for its consideration on the question of flight. In the present case the defendant was never allowed to present to the jury the circumstances surrounding the Birmingham Police Department's internal affairs investigation. The reason for the defendant's flight is a question properly reserved for the jury after a consideration of all the relevant circumstances.

¶5Furthermore, the proper inquiry here is not whether evidence of the defendant's guilt is overwhelming but, instead, whether a substantial right of the defendant has or probably has been adversely affected. The exclusion of evidence tending to explain a flight does adversely affect a substantial right of a defendant. See Goforth v.State, 183 Ala. 66, 63 So. 8 (1913); McAllister v.State, 30 Ala. App. 366, 6 So.2d 32 (1942); Green v.State, 258 Ala. 471, 64 So.2d 84 (1953). Overwhelming evidence of guilt does not render prejudicial error harmless under Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P. See Ex parte Johnson,507 So.2d 1351 (Ala. 1986).

¶6Having determined that the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded, we pretermit any discussion of the other errors alleged to have been committed by the trial court, as they will probably not occur at another trial.

¶7REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶8MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY, ADAMS and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

/514/so2d/1049 · .json · Public domain