Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, 2004

King v. State

King v. State
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals · Decided February 27, 2004 · Wise, McMillan, Cobb, Baschab, Shaw
895 So. 2d 375; 2004 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 35; 2004 WL 362271 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

King v. State

Concurring Opinion

SHAW, Judge,

concurring in the result.

I concur in all aspects of the unpublished memorandum except the majority’s discussion of the “third issue” — whether certain pieces of physical evidence were admissible. On page 25 of his initial brief, Bob King stated: “Since King is entitled to a new trial based upon the arguments mentioned supra, it would be beneficial for *376this Court to also address the issue of the admissibility of the nude photographs of other women not related to the victims, Playboy magazines, and firearms, so when the new trials are held the trial court can make the proper ruling.” In his reply brief on page 7, King noted: “King’s argument as to Issue S was not for reversal. Rather, should he be granted a new trial as a result of Issues 1 and 2, he requests an instruction to the trial court to allow testimony that nude photographs were found, but not allow their actual admission into evidence.” (Emphasis added.) Because King’s convictions are due to be affirmed for the reasons stated by the majority in addressing his first two issues, I see no need to address whether this physical evidence was properly admitted. That issue is not before this Court.

Opinion of the Court

WISE, Judge.

AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.

McMILLAN, P.J., and COBB and BASCHAB, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., concurs in the result, with opinion.

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