Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, 1997

Dandridge v. State

Dandridge v. State
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals · Decided October 31, 1997 · Baschab, Brown, Cobb, Long, McMillan
716 So. 2d 1288; 1997 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 342; 1997 WL 675312 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Dandridge v. State

Opinion of the Court

LONG, Presiding Judge.

AFFIRMED BY MEMORANDUM. NO OPINION.

McMILLAN, COBB, and BROWN, JJ., concur. BASCHAB, J., concurs with opinion.

Concurring Opinion

BASCHAB, Judge,

concurring specially.

While I agree with the majority that the testimony regarding Suddeth’s statements against penal interest constitute inadmissible hearsay under Alabama law, I share the same concerns that Judge Cobb expressed in her special concurrence in Snyder v. State, 683 So.2d 45, 47-48 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996). I believe that the better rule is to allow these statements and corroborating evidence to be presented to the jury. I join with Judge Cobb in urging the Alabama Supreme Court to reexamine Alabama’s present rule on statements against penal interest.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑