¶1Charles P. Hollifield and William R. Blanchard, Montgomery, for appellant.
¶2Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and William D. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
AFTER REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
¶4PER CURIAM.
¶5On June 10, 1991, the United States Supreme Court ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2791, 115 L.Ed.2d 966, vacated the judgment of this court in this case, see Brown v. State,571 So.2d 345 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. quashed,571 So.2d 353 (Ala.1990), and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Mu'Min v. Virginia,500 U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 114 L.Ed.2d 493 (1991). We have carefully studied this decision.
¶6Our original decision in this cause is distinguishable both on the facts and the law from Mu'Min. We maintain our original position that the trial judge abused his discretion in the denial of the request for the individual voir dire of the jury venire.
¶7REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
¶8All the Judges concur.
¶9TYSON, Judge, concurring specially.
¶10While I concur in the order and judgment of this court as noted above, I am also of the opinion that this appellant was denied his right to due process of law and his right to an impartial jury as guaranteed to him by Art. 1, Sec. 6, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. See Ex parte Webb,*992586 So.2d 954 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Caffie,516 So.2d 831 (Ala.1987).