If you only remember one point about evidence law in Alabama, remember this: Alabama evidence practice is organized under the Alabama Rules of Evidence. Relevance starts at Ala. R. Evid. 401, 403; hearsay starts at Ala. R. Evid. 801, 802. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off Alabama Rules of Evidence. Authenticity is a separate fight under Ala. R. Evid. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: In civil cases, Ala. R. Civ. P. 32 governs when deposition testimony may be used at trial, including former-testimony and party-opponent scenarios. Criminal practitioners look to Ala. R. Crim. P. 15.7 and related discovery rules for deposition availability, which is narrower than in civil litigation. Deposition transcripts must still satisfy hearsay exceptions (often 804(b)(1) or party-opponent rules) before admission.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Alabama are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Ala. R. Evid. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Alabama hearsay opinions
Ex Parte Bobby Baker, Jr. (In Re Bobby Baker, Jr. v. State of Alabama). — Stuart, J., dissenting
"`Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.' Edward W. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 584 (1972).…
Practitioners open Ex Parte Bobby Baker, Jr. (In Re Bobby Baker, Jr. v. State of Alabama). — Stuart, J., dissenting when Alabama hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.' Edward W." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
T.Y. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
T.Y. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, 2013 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 61 (2013)
…t factual finding was presented in the form of inadmissible hearsay. The record indicates that DHR questioned Sabrina Boswell, a DHR social worker, concerning the mother’s mental-health diagnoses. The juvenile court initially sustained the mother’s objection that that evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay, concluding that it would not consider that evidence in determining w…
Alabama opinions such as T.Y. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "The record indicates that DHR questioned Sabrina Boswell, a DHR social worker, concerning the mother’s mental-health diagnoses." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Dewey Donald Featherston v. State of Alabama.
Dewey Donald Featherston v. State of Alabama., 2001 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 233 (2001)
…were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The jury convicted Featherston of two counts of possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. This appeal followed. The dispositive issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred when it admitted State’s Exhibits 7 and 8, the forgery affidavits executed by Mr. Campbell on Februa…
Dewey Donald Featherston v. State of Alabama. is worth reading on Alabama hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "The jury convicted Featherston of two counts of possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. This appeal followed." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Robert Grant v. State Department of Human Resources. (In the Matter of Robin Hopkins, Tracy Ann Grant and April Dawn
…with a fair opportunity to rebut the statement. This child hearsay exception applies to all hearings involving dependency including, but not limited to, the 72-hour hearing, the dependency hearing and the disposition hearing." Generally, hearsay is defined as evidence of an out-of-court statement that is being offered to show the truth of the matter asserted. Lavett v. Lavett,…
Practitioners open Robert Grant v. State Department of Human Resources. (In the Matter of Robin Hopkins, Tracy Ann Grant and April Dawn when Alabama hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "This child hearsay exception applies to all hearings involving dependency including, but not limited to, the 72-hour hearing, the dependency hearing and the disposition hearing." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Myrtle Mainor v. Hayneville Telephone Co.
Myrtle Mainor v. Hayneville Telephone Co., 1997 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1013 (1997)
…d be admissible under the "public records" exception of the hearsay rule is irrelevant. Because the trial court erred in admitting the four accident reports at issue, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. CRAWLEY, J., dissents. CRAWLEY, Judge,…
Practitioners open Myrtle Mainor v. Hayneville Telephone Co. when Alabama hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Because the trial court erred in admitting the four accident reports at issue, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. CRAWLEY, J., dissents." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Alabama Department of Human Resources v. Mark Barnes.
…ld concerning allegations of sexual abuse were inadmissible hearsay. Thereafter, the court entered the following judgment: “After hearing and considering the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that the allegations of the Petition filed herein are not proven by admissible evidence, and the Court fails to find that the allegations of the Petition relating to allege…
On hearsay, State of Alabama Department of Human Resources v. Mark Barnes. speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "ld concerning allegations of sexual abuse were inadmissible hearsay. Thereafter, the court entered the following judgment: “After hearing and considering the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that the allegations of the Petition filed herein are not proven by admi" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Walking through Alabama facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Alabama authority does the work at each step.
A lawyer in Alabama wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Ala. R. Evid. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Ala. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in Ala. R. Evid. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Ala. R. Evid. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in Ala. R. Evid. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet Ala. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under Ala. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Alabama keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Alabama Rules of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Alabama treats them under Ala. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Alabama party-admission opinions
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Pearson, Adm'r
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Pearson, Adm'r, 97 Ala. 211 (1892)
…ted in evidence against the objection of the defendant. The admission of this evidence is assigned as error. It is claimed that these declarations were properly admitted as a part of *214the res gestae. There is evidence tending to show that as plaintiff’s intestate attempted to ascend to the top of a moving car the “hand hold” by which he endeavored to pull hinself up gave way…
Practitioners open Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Pearson, Adm'r when Alabama party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The admission of this evidence is assigned as error. It is claimed that these declarations were properly admitted as a part of *214the res gestae." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Watson v. McGee
Watson v. McGee, 348 So. 2d 461 (1977)
…or its effect is to force upon the party stipulating to the admission of one statement, the admission of another statement different in kind and source from the first, so long as the two are similar in substance. A party may have no objection, on the one hand, to stipulating to the use of a written statement by a witness otherwise inadmissible; while, on the other hand, he may…
On party admissions, Watson v. McGee speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "or its effect is to force upon the party stipulating to the admission of one statement, the admission of another statement different in kind and source from the first, so long as the two are similar in substance. A party may have no objection, on the one hand, to stipulating to t" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Dickson v. Dinsmore.
Dickson v. Dinsmore., 219 Ala. 353 (1929)
…aspects. In one of them, such statements are admissible as admissions of the party, and in such event no predicate is necessary; and they are also admissible as impeaching testimony, and when, for that purpose, the same rule as to predicate is required as when the witness is not a party. Moore v. Crosthwait, 135 Ala. 272, 33 So. 28 ; 6 Jones on Ev. (2d Ed.) § 2412; Browning v.…
Alabama opinions such as Dickson v. Dinsmore. are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "In one of them, such statements are admissible as admissions of the party, and in such event no predicate is necessary; and they are also admissible as impeaching testimony, and when, for that purpose, the same rule as to predicate is required as when the witness is not a party." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Watson v. State
Watson v. State, 538 So. 2d 1216 (1988)
…osecutions, incest prosecutions, and rape prosecutions, the admission of evidence showing a defendant's prior or subsequent acts indicating a sexual passion for the prosecutrix are expressed in Gamble, supra, at § 45.11(3), (4), and (5), respectively. Likewise, in Schroeder, Hoffman and Thigpen, Alabama Evidence, § 4-4(8) (1987), the following is observed: "[I]n prosecutions fo…
On party admissions, Watson v. State speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "Gamble, supra, at § 45.11(3), (4), and (5), respectively." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Roland Gilbert CAMPOS III v. STATE of Alabama
Roland Gilbert CAMPOS III v. STATE of Alabama, 2015 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 98 (2015)
…mony was inadmissible hearsay. Campos did not object to the admission of the video of the interview, and he did not object on a hearsay basis during Webster’s testimony. Because Campos failed to argue before the trial court that the video of the interview and Webster’s testimony were hearsay, his argument is not properly before this Court. See Harris v. State, 563 So.2d 9, 11 (…
Alabama opinions such as Roland Gilbert CAMPOS III v. STATE of Alabama are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Campos did not object to the admission of the video of the interview, and he did not object on a hearsay basis during Webster’s testimony." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Erline F. Worsham v. William G. Fletcher
Erline F. Worsham v. William G. Fletcher, 454 So. 2d 946 (1984)
…So.2d 278 (Ala. 1978). In order to lay a predicate for the admission of a document under the "past recollection recorded" rule, the witness must testify to the following: "(1) That he personally observed the event or facts referred to in the writing and that the writing was made or seen by the witness either contemporaneously with the event or when his recollection of the even…
On party admissions, Erline F. Worsham v. William G. Fletcher speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "So.2d 278 (Ala. 1978). In order to lay a predicate for the admission of a document under the 'past recollection recorded' rule, the witness must testify to the following: '(1) That he personally observed the event or facts referred to in the writing and that the writing was made" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
David GURGANUS v. Douglas KIKER and Mable Kiker
David GURGANUS v. Douglas KIKER and Mable Kiker, 286 Ala. 442 (1970)
…t question the correctness of the abstract. The defendant’s admission in the conversations between him and the plaintiffs, undenied by him, plus his failure to deny the correctness of the abstract of title, warranted a finding that defendant neither had title by adverse possession nor any right to retain possession by reason of the ten-year statute of limitations. Defendant con…
David GURGANUS v. Douglas KIKER and Mable Kiker is worth reading on Alabama party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "t question the correctness of the abstract. The defendant’s admission in the conversations between him and the plaintiffs, undenied by him, plus his failure to deny the correctness of the abstract of title, warranted a finding that defendant neither had title by adverse possessio" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
J.K. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
J.K. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 168 (2012)
…9, 2010, finding the child dependent based on the parties’ “admissions and from the clear and convincing evidence presented for the purposes of adjudication.”1 The juvenile court continued the award of custody of the child to the paternal grandmother, and it ordered that the parents’ visitation be supervised by DHR or its designee. That order, like the earlier orders, also set…
Alabama opinions such as J.K. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "The juvenile court continued the award of custody of the child to the paternal grandmother, and it ordered that the parents’ visitation be supervised by DHR or its designee." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Business records
The business-records exception under Ala. R. Evid. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Alabama business-records opinions
Ex Parte Frith
Ex Parte Frith, 526 So. 2d 880 (1988)
…a defense witness was properly admitted into evidence as a business record at petitioner's trial on a rape charge. The Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion contains a more detailed statement of the facts of this case, but the facts relevant to our review are as follows: Johnny Hugh Frith[1] was convicted of rape and was sentenced to life in prison under the provisions of Alabama…
Alabama opinions such as Ex Parte Frith are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "a defense witness was properly admitted into evidence as a business record at petitioner's trial on a rape charge. The Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion contains a more detailed statement of the facts of this case, but the facts relevant to our review are as follows: Johnny Hugh" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
John Edward Pickett v. State.
John Edward Pickett v. State., 456 So. 2d 330 (1983)
…, 860 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981). Section 12-21-5 is a "specialized business record statute . . . which renders admissible a certified copy of hospital records that are kept in the regular course of the particular hospital's business." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, Section 254.01 (7), p. 99, 1980 Supplement (3rd ed. 1977). Consequently, a copy of a hospital record will constit…
Alabama opinions such as John Edward Pickett v. State. are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Ala.Cr.App. 1981). Section 12-21-5 is a 'specialized business record statute . . . which renders admissible a certified copy of hospital records that are kept in the regular course of the particular hospital's business.' C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, Section 254.01 (7), p." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Clinton M. Ikner, Jr. v. Linda Miller and James Robert Peters.
Clinton M. Ikner, Jr. v. Linda Miller and James Robert Peters., 477 So. 2d 387 (1985)
…lse for this custodian. If you get them certified under the Business Records Act, I will keep this case open for you to submit them." The plaintiffs subsequently submitted the copies of the records, along with an affidavit from the custodian of the records stating that they were accurate photocopies of business records which he was required to keep as part of his job. The defen…
On business records, Clinton M. Ikner, Jr. v. Linda Miller and James Robert Peters. speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "If you get them certified under the Business Records Act, I will keep this case open for you to submit them." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Steven Michael Vizzina v. City of Birmingham.
Steven Michael Vizzina v. City of Birmingham., 533 So. 2d 652 (1987)
…hat "It is hearsay, it is just a police record, it is not a business record and it is not used for any business and the proper predicate has not been laid and he is not custodian, it is just a thing that they leave over there for every police officer to write on." "Record books of PEI tests are generally admissible into evidence under the business records exception to the hears…
Alabama opinions such as Steven Michael Vizzina v. City of Birmingham. are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "It is hearsay, it is just a police record, it is not a business record and it is not used for any business and the proper predicate has not been laid and he is not custodian, it is just a thing that they leave over there for every police officer to write on." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
McLaughlin v. City of Homewood
McLaughlin v. City of Homewood, 548 So. 2d 580 (1988)
…st results, was improperly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. During the testimony of Officer Swearingen of the City of Homewood Police Department, the following transpired: "Q Is this the log kept in the ordinary course of business of the Homewood Police Department? *584 "A Yes, sir. "Q Are you a custodian of this log? "A Well, one…
On business records, McLaughlin v. City of Homewood speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "During the testimony of Officer Swearingen of the City of Homewood Police Department, the following transpired: 'Q Is this the log kept in the ordinary course of business of the Homewood Police Department?" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
W.R. Batey D/B/A Aaa Services v. Jefferson County Board of Health.
W.R. Batey D/B/A Aaa Services v. Jefferson County Board of Health., 486 So. 2d 439 (1986)
…ts, referred to as "call in" and "dump" reports, under the "business records" exception to the hearsay rule. He argues that the documents do not properly come under the exception because the witness used to authenticate them was not able to personally attest to the truth of the statements recorded. We must reject this argument. The rule regarding the proper authentication of a…
Alabama opinions such as W.R. Batey D/B/A Aaa Services v. Jefferson County Board of Health. are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "He argues that the documents do not properly come under the exception because the witness used to authenticate them was not able to personally attest to the truth of the statements recorded. We must reject this argument." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Sharon Brooks v. City of Birmingham.
Sharon Brooks v. City of Birmingham., 1986 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5961 (1986)
…ion. Ms. Joann Williams, custodian of the telephone company business records, testified that it was in the regular course of her employer's business to report to the Police Chief investigations of telephone calls made by the Annoyance Call Bureau. Appellant contends that these records were inadmissible because: (1) the proper foundation was not laid for introduction of the call…
Practitioners open Sharon Brooks v. City of Birmingham. when Alabama business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Ms. Joann Williams, custodian of the telephone company business records, testified that it was in the regular course of her employer's business to report to the Police Chief investigations of telephone calls made by the Annoyance Call Bureau." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Dewey Donald Featherston v. State of Alabama.
Dewey Donald Featherston v. State of Alabama., 2001 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 233 (2001)
…rt determined that the affidavits were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The jury convicted Featherston of two counts of possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. This appeal followed. The dispositive issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred when it admitted State’s Exhibits 7 and 8, the forgery affidavits…
Practitioners open Dewey Donald Featherston v. State of Alabama. when Alabama business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The jury convicted Featherston of two counts of possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. This appeal followed." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Alabama trial practice.
Excited utterance — Ala. R. Evid. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Ala. R. Evid. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Ala. R. Evid. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Ala. R. Evid. 804(a), Alabama opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Ala. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Ala. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Alabama dying-declaration opinions
Husch v. State.
Husch v. State., 211 Ala. 274 (1924)
…the written statement which was received in evidence as his dying declaration that he was going to die, and the declaration itself was prefaced by the statement that he believed it to be his dying statement- . On this predicate the statement was properly admitted as a dying declaration. 14 Michie’s Digest, 114, § 182. The trial court admitted in evidence, ■over defendant’s obje…
Husch v. State. is worth reading on Alabama dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "On this predicate the statement was properly admitted as a dying declaration. 14 Michie’s Digest, 114, § 182." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Pilcher v. State.
Pilcher v. State., 16 Ala. App. 237 (1917)
…imony of one J. A. Wood, who swore that the deceased made a dying declaration to him, and also that subsequent to the killing the defendant came to his place of business and made a statement or confession to him about the difficulty, and showed him the knife that he said the deceased had attempted to cut him with. There were few exceptions reserved during the trial of the case,…
On dying declaration, Pilcher v. State. speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "imony of one J. A. Wood, who swore that the deceased made a dying declaration to him, and also that subsequent to the killing the defendant came to his place of business and made a statement or confession to him about the difficulty, and showed him the knife that he said the dece" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
JOHNSON v. State
JOHNSON v. State, 47 Ala. 9 (1872)
…673. 2. Were the declarations offered by the State, as the dying declarations of the deceased, admissible? Dying declarations are only admissible where the deceased knows or thinks he is in a dying state. Positive evidence of this knowledge is not required; it may be inferred from the conduct and condition of the deceased. Roscoe’s Crim. Ev. 29. It is a general rule, that dyin…
JOHNSON v. State is worth reading on Alabama dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "Were the declarations offered by the State, as the dying declarations of the deceased, admissible?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Lewis v. State.
Lewis v. State., 231 Ala. 211 (1935)
…ng the state to introduce in evidence what purports to be a dying declaration, made by the deceased to Dr. Salter, when the latter was called to treat the deceased a short time after the difficulty. It appears that a difficulty occurred between the defendant and the deceased in a pea field, cultivated by the former on a plantation in Barbour county owned by a Mr. Calhoun, and t…
Lewis v. State. is worth reading on Alabama dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "Dr. Salter, when the latter was called to treat the deceased a short time after the difficulty. It appears that a difficulty occurred between the defendant and the deceased in a pea field, cultivated by the former on a plantation in Barbour county owned by a Mr." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Brooks v. State.
Brooks v. State., 32 Ala. App. 389 (1946)
…reports. The State’s case was dependent on the admission as dying declarations of certain statements made by deceased to Solon Brooks, his son, and Mrs. Ruby Hill, his daughter, to whose home he was brought after his stay in the hospital. The deceased was carried to a hospital by his son Solon Brooks shortly after he was shot on September 4. He was suffering from two bullet wou…
On dying declaration, Brooks v. State. speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "The State’s case was dependent on the admission as dying declarations of certain statements made by deceased to Solon Brooks, his son, and Mrs. Ruby Hill, his daughter, to whose home he was brought after his stay in the hospital." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Smith v. State.
Smith v. State., 16 Ala. App. 47 (1917)
…at the court erred in permitting the state to introduce the dying declarations of the deceased, on the grounds that no sufficient predicate had been laid, etc. The admissibility or competency of dying declarations is for the determination of the trial court in the first instance; and in this connection it has been well said: "No rule can be laid down. The circumstances of each…
Alabama opinions such as Smith v. State. are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "The admissibility or competency of dying declarations is for the determination of the trial court in the first instance; and in this connection it has been well said: 'No rule can be laid down." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Young v. State
Young v. State, 95 Ala. 4 (1891)
…n relates to tbe admission of statements by tbe deceased as dying declarations. Tbe testimony tends to show that tbe attending physician was called professionally to see deceased on tbe 7th day of May, 1891, immediately after tbe fatal shot was fired. Tbe physician testifies that deceased “was suffering very much, and was then in a dying condition;” “that be died at 6 o’clock A…
Alabama opinions such as Young v. State are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Tbe testimony tends to show that tbe attending physician was called professionally to see deceased on tbe 7th day of May, 1891, immediately after tbe fatal shot was fired." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Jones v. State.
Jones v. State., 21 Ala. App. 33 (1925)
…ruling the objections interposed to certain portions of the dying declarations, and in declining to exclude same from the consideration of the jury upon motion of defendant. There is probably no merit in the insistence that no sufficient predicate was proven for the admission of the dying declarations. xIn fact it does not appear that cqunsel for appellant seriously insist upon…
Alabama opinions such as Jones v. State. are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "There is probably no merit in the insistence that no sufficient predicate was proven for the admission of the dying declarations." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Ala. R. Evid. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Alabama medical-statement opinions
Ex Parte Donald C. Price. (Re Canterbury Electric Company v. Donald C. Price).
…at valid awards can stand only if accompanied by a definite medical diagnosis. True, in many instances it may be impossible to form a judgment on the relation of the *Page 1062 employment to the injury, or relation of the injury to the disability, without analyzing in medical terms what the injury or disease is. But this is not invariably so. In appropriate circumstances, award…
Practitioners open Ex Parte Donald C. Price. (Re Canterbury Electric Company v. Donald C. Price). when Alabama medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "True, in many instances it may be impossible to form a judgment on the relation of the *Page 1062 employment to the injury, or relation of the injury to the disability, without analyzing in medical terms what the injury or disease is. But this is not invariably so." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Jeffrey Scott MOORE v. CITY OF LEEDS
Jeffrey Scott MOORE v. CITY OF LEEDS, 2008 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 26 (2008)
…R. Evid., provides that “[sjtatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment,” are exceptions to the general rule excluding hearsay testimony. This…
Practitioners open Jeffrey Scott MOORE v. CITY OF LEEDS when Alabama medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "R. Evid., provides that “[sjtatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinen" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
M.B. v. R.P. and P.P.
M.B. v. R.P. and P.P., 3 So. 3d 237 (2008)
…ich exception encompasses “[statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment ....” This court concluded that the Rule 803(4) exception did not apply to the facts of that case, reasoning that the counselor’s opinions were “not made for the purpose of ‘medical diagnosis or treatment.’ ” S.J.R. v. F.M.R., 933 So.2d at 360. The court explained that the child’s stateme…
M.B. v. R.P. and P.P. is worth reading on Alabama medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "This court concluded that the Rule 803(4) exception did not apply to the facts of that case, reasoning that the counselor’s opinions were “not made for the purpose of ‘medical diagnosis or treatment.’ ” S.J.R. v. F.M.R., 933 So.2d at 360." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Ex Parte American Color Graphics, Inc.
Ex Parte American Color Graphics, Inc., 838 So. 2d 385 (2002)
…vid., in either subsection (4) ("Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment") or subsection (6) ("Records of Regularly Conducted Activity"). The Court of Civil Appeals expressly finds and holds that Exhibit 2(A) fulfills the criteria for admissibility as an exception to the hearsay rule as defined by the aforesaid Rule 803(4) ("Statements for Purposes of Medical…
Practitioners open Ex Parte American Color Graphics, Inc. when Alabama medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment') or subsection (6) ('Records of Regularly Conducted Activity')." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Jerry Nance v. Douglas Nance.
Jerry Nance v. Douglas Nance., 640 So. 2d 953 (1994)
…40-45 pounds. The other three doctors were unable to make a medical diagnosis of the employee. They testified that various tests performed, such as myelogram, EMG, MRI, and CAT scan, showed no abnormalities or herniated disks that would account for the employee's complaints of low back pain. Dr. James Davie, a neurological surgeon, testified that in February 1991 he performed a…
Alabama opinions such as Jerry Nance v. Douglas Nance. are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "The other three doctors were unable to make a medical diagnosis of the employee. They testified that various tests performed, such as myelogram, EMG, MRI, and CAT scan, showed no abnormalities or herniated disks that would account for the employee's complaints of low back pain. Dr." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Akins Funeral Home, Inc. v. Miller
Akins Funeral Home, Inc. v. Miller, 878 So. 2d 267 (2003)
…resa Miller. Akins argues that part of her testimony was a "medical diagnosis" and that her testimony should not have been allowed because, Akins argues, "only a physician or an individual authorized by statute may formulate a medical diagnosis and state the cause of the injury." (Akins's brief, p. 15.) Davidson testified that she was a freelance consultant and that she had "a…
Akins Funeral Home, Inc. v. Miller is worth reading on Alabama medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "Miller. Akins argues that part of her testimony was a 'medical diagnosis' and that her testimony should not have been allowed because, Akins argues, 'only a physician or an individual authorized by statute may formulate a medical diagnosis and state the cause of the injury." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
American Color Graphics, Inc. v. Foster
American Color Graphics, Inc. v. Foster, 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 583 (2001)
…able as a witness: ". . . . "(4) Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment." Plain…
Alabama opinions such as American Color Graphics, Inc. v. Foster are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Use of depositions at trial
In civil cases, Ala. R. Civ. P. 32 governs when deposition testimony may be used at trial, including former-testimony and party-opponent scenarios. Criminal practitioners look to Ala. R. Crim. P. 15.7 and related discovery rules for deposition availability, which is narrower than in civil litigation. Deposition transcripts must still satisfy hearsay exceptions (often 804(b)(1) or party-opponent rules) before admission.
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Alabama deposition / former-testimony opinions
LEWIS (a slave) v. State
LEWIS (a slave) v. State, 35 Ala. 380 (1860)
…attempt was made to discredit Busby, by proving that in his deposition before the committing magistrate, he had made statemeuts contradictory of his testimony on the trial in chief. As a predicate for introducing the deposition, the witness Busby was asked as to his former testimony, which he admitted. On re-examination, he was asked why lie had testified as his deposition disc…
Alabama opinions such as LEWIS (a slave) v. State are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Busby, by proving that in his deposition before the committing magistrate, he had made statemeuts contradictory of his testimony on the trial in chief. As a predicate for introducing the deposition, the witness Busby was asked as to his former testimony, which he admitted." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Lester v. Jacobs.
Lester v. Jacobs., 212 Ala. 614 (1925)
…ot an apt authority. The question there was the status of a deposition taken in chancery prior to an amendment. If the defendants had admitted parts of Mrs. Eustace’s former testimony without limitation and in 'the nature of original evidence, a reply in like character was justified in Bank of Phoenix City v. Taylor, 196 Ala. 666, 72 So. 264; Gibson v. Gaines, 198 Ala. 583, 73…
On deposition / former testimony, Lester v. Jacobs. speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "The question there was the status of a deposition taken in chancery prior to an amendment. If the defendants had admitted parts of Mrs." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
J. Gilmer Blackburn v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland.
J. Gilmer Blackburn v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland., 1995 Ala. LEXIS 282 (1995)
…efend. A. Although one of F D's claims workers testified by deposition that F D had not actually denied Blackburn's claim for a defense, but had only not afforded it to him, its failure to provide Blackburn's defense for more than four years after F D received notice of the first of the Roussel buy-out lawsuits amounts to a constructive denial of its duty to defend. On appeal,…
Practitioners open J. Gilmer Blackburn v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. when Alabama deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Blackburn's claim for a defense, but had only not afforded it to him, its failure to provide Blackburn's defense for more than four years after F D received notice of the first of the Roussel buy-out lawsuits amounts to a constructive denial of its duty to defend." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Lowe v. State
Lowe v. State, 86 Ala. 47 (1888)
…rovertible rule, that when the witness may be produced, his deposition can not be read, for it is not the best evidence. But the deposition of the witness may be read, not only when it appears that the witness is actually dead, but in all cases where he is dead for all purposes of evidence-, as where diligent search has been made for him, and he can not be found; where he resid…
Practitioners open Lowe v. State when Alabama deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "rovertible rule, that when the witness may be produced, his deposition can not be read, for it is not the best evidence. But the deposition of the witness may be read, not only when it appears that the witness is actually dead, but in all cases where he is dead for all purposes o" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Manning v. State.
Manning v. State., 217 Ala. 357 (1928)
…e. The witness should have been permitted to have the whole deposition, evidence, or statement, and examine the same and declare whether or not it was the evidence or statement of that witness. And that deposition or evidence introduced, not as evidence of independent, cumulative. or original evidence of fact, but for the purpose of testing the recollection of the witness, or f…
Manning v. State. is worth reading on Alabama deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "The witness should have been permitted to have the whole deposition, evidence, or statement, and examine the same and declare whether or not it was the evidence or statement of that witness. And that deposition or evidence introduced, not as evidence of independent, cumulative." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Flowers v. State
Flowers v. State, 799 So. 2d 966 (2000)
…serve that at no point before the taking of Dr. Lauridson's deposition or during the deposition did counsel object on the basis now raised on appeal. Thus, we are confined to a plain-error analysis. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. The section cited by Flowers, § 12-21-261, was repealed by Act No. 95-719, Ala. Acts 1995. Currently, the taking of witnesses' depositions is governed by § 12…
On deposition / former testimony, Flowers v. State speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "Dr. Lauridson's deposition or during the deposition did counsel object on the basis now raised on appeal. Thus, we are confined to a plain-error analysis. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. The section cited by Flowers, § 12-21-261, was repealed by Act No. 95-719, Ala. Acts 1995." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Johns v. AT Stephens Enterprises, Inc.
Johns v. AT Stephens Enterprises, Inc., 2001 Ala. LEXIS 315 (2001)
…or confusion and unfairly prejudice the defendants? (4) Was deposition testimony from a prior action improperly used at trial against Johns and Best Systems? (5) Was Johns unfairly prejudiced by his court-excused absence from the trial after the trial judge had rescinded the judgment he had entered in Johns's favor? (6) Did the trial judge err in admitting evidence of the defen…
Johns v. AT Stephens Enterprises, Inc. is worth reading on Alabama deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Was deposition testimony from a prior action improperly used at trial against Johns and Best Systems?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Doris L. Henning v. Terry L. Henning.
Doris L. Henning v. Terry L. Henning., 2009 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 354 (2009)
…site exhibits totaling bank deposits for several years. The depositions of the former husband and his current wife, which were admitted at trial, are not included in the exhibits on appeal. The former wife’s exhibit outlining her expenses is also missing from the record. Although the former wife appended certain exhibits to her brief, we are precluded from considering those ite…
Alabama opinions such as Doris L. Henning v. Terry L. Henning. are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "The depositions of the former husband and his current wife, which were admitted at trial, are not included in the exhibits on appeal. The former wife’s exhibit outlining her expenses is also missing from the record." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Ala. R. Evid. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Alabama judges apply Ala. R. Evid. 901 as a threshold gate before jurors see disputed exhibits, including social-media posts, surveillance video, and business records. Chain-of-custody questions for drugs, firearms, and digital devices are litigated under the same authentication framework, often with expert or sponsoring-witness testimony.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Alabama trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Alabama trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Alabama authenticity opinions
Ex Parte Frith
Ex Parte Frith, 526 So. 2d 880 (1988)
…bama Business Record Act, Code 1975, § 12-21-43, a properly authenticated business record is admissible in evidence when a foundation, as outlined in the Code, is laid by the proponent of the evidence. Section 12-21-43 requires that it be shown (1) that the record or writing was made as a memorandum or record of an act, transaction, occurrence, or event; (2) that the record was…
Alabama opinions such as Ex Parte Frith are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Business Record Act, Code 1975, § 12-21-43, a properly authenticated business record is admissible in evidence when a foundation, as outlined in the Code, is laid by the proponent of the evidence." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Crowne Investments, Inc.
Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Crowne Investments, Inc., 2004 Ala. LEXIS 340 (2004)
…ted to each of these exhibits on the ground that it was not authenticated.[3] As noted, the trial court did not rule on those objections; thus, in order to determine whether Royal made the requisite showing of a meritorious defense, we must determine whether Crowne's objection as to each exhibit was well-taken. If so, and a document was not sufficiently authenticated, we cannot…
Practitioners open Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Crowne Investments, Inc. when Alabama authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "As noted, the trial court did not rule on those objections; thus, in order to determine whether Royal made the requisite showing of a meritorious defense, we must determine whether Crowne's objection as to each exhibit was well-taken." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Clinton M. Ikner, Jr. v. Linda Miller and James Robert Peters.
Clinton M. Ikner, Jr. v. Linda Miller and James Robert Peters., 477 So. 2d 387 (1985)
…§ 254.01(3) (3d ed.1977). Mrs. Miller's testimony properly authenticated the documents. The affidavit from the custodian was not necessary to the introduction of the exhibit. They could have been admitted at the time they were first offered. The rule provides that a photocopy of a writing "shall be deemed to be an original record and shall be presumed to be a true and correct…
On authentication, Clinton M. Ikner, Jr. v. Linda Miller and James Robert Peters. speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "Mrs. Miller's testimony properly authenticated the documents. The affidavit from the custodian was not necessary to the introduction of the exhibit. They could have been admitted at the time they were first offered." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Steven Michael Vizzina v. City of Birmingham.
Steven Michael Vizzina v. City of Birmingham., 533 So. 2d 652 (1987)
…s not established because the City did not introduce a duly authenticated copy of the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Health. Officer J.E. Summers of the Birmingham Police Department testified that he followed a checklist contained on a document entitled "Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health Relating to the Alabama Chemical Test for Intoxication Act.…
Alabama opinions such as Steven Michael Vizzina v. City of Birmingham. are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "City did not introduce a duly authenticated copy of the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Health. Officer J.E." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Alabama v. R. R. HOLLOWAY Et Al.
STATE of Alabama v. R. R. HOLLOWAY Et Al., 293 Ala. 543 (1975)
…ober the 25th 1973. I don’t know how you can get any better authentication than that. “MR. BURNS: The proper way to introduce it is to do what I think anybody should: there is no date, no time or any authentication of it or certification of it.” “THE COURT: ‘Overruled.’” The stated grounds of objection, argued on this appeal, are that the map was not recorded and no…
On authentication, STATE of Alabama v. R. R. HOLLOWAY Et Al. speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "I don’t know how you can get any better authentication than that. “MR. BURNS: The proper way to introduce it is to do what I think anybody should: there is no date, no time or any authentication of it or certification of it.” “THE COURT: ‘Overruled." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Anthony Lynn Shumate v. State.
Anthony Lynn Shumate v. State., 676 So. 2d 1345 (1995)
…labama case law certified copies of public records are self-authenticating and admissible into evidence. Bentley v.State, 450 So.2d 197, 199 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). Similarly, Rule 902(4) of the Alabama Rules of Evidence, which will be effective in Alabama courts January 1, 1996, provides for self-authentication of certified copies of public records. However, the state presented to…
Practitioners open Anthony Lynn Shumate v. State. when Alabama authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Bentley v.State, 450 So.2d 197, 199 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). Similarly, Rule 902(4) of the Alabama Rules of Evidence, which will be effective in Alabama courts January 1, 1996, provides for self-authentication of certified copies of public records." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Nicholas Mester v. State.
Nicholas Mester v. State., 755 So. 2d 66 (1999)
…book submitted into evidence at his trial were not properly authenticated because, he says, the prosecution did not prove that they had been certified by the custodian of records of the Blount County Sheriff's Department and the pages were not under seal so as to be self-authenticated. Mester contends that the introduction of the pages that contained the test results, without a…
Alabama opinions such as Nicholas Mester v. State. are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Blount County Sheriff's Department and the pages were not under seal so as to be self-authenticated." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Shannon Wilkinson SMITH v. Justin Randall SMITH
Shannon Wilkinson SMITH v. Justin Randall SMITH, 2015 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 72 (2015)
…t issue, and she asserts that the father failed to properly authenticate the e-mails and text messages as required by Rule 901, Ala. R. Evid. “ ‘ “The standard applicable to a review- of a trial court’s rulings on the admission of evidence is determined by two fundamental principles. The first grants trial judges wide discretion to exclude or to admit evidence.” ’ Mock v. Allen…
Shannon Wilkinson SMITH v. Justin Randall SMITH is worth reading on Alabama authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "Rule 901, Ala. R. Evid. “ ‘ “The standard applicable to a review- of a trial court’s rulings on the admission of evidence is determined by two fundamental principles. The first grants trial judges wide discretion to exclude or to admit evidence.” ’ Mock v." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Ala. R. Evid. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Alabama appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
General standards of admissibility
Alabama starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Ala. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Alabama retains some local quirks in character and impeachment practice despite FRE alignment. Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is abuse-of-discretion standard; brief writers should tie objections to specific rule subdivisions.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Character evidence
Character evidence in Alabama is governed by Ala. R. Evid. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Alabama character-evidence opinions
Ricky Hunter v. State. — Baschab, J., dissenting
Ricky Hunter v. State. — Baschab, J., dissenting, 2000 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 195 (2000)
…e 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., state: "The general rule excluding character evidence does not bar evidence of specific acts when that evidence is offered for some purpose other than the impermissible one of proving action in conformity with a particular character. While section (b) does not purport to provide an exhaustive listing of proper purposes, it states that proper purposes ma…
Practitioners open Ricky Hunter v. State. — Baschab, J., dissenting when Alabama character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Ala. R. Evid., state: 'The general rule excluding character evidence does not bar evidence of specific acts when that evidence is offered for some purpose other than the impermissible one of proving action in conformity with a particular character." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Ex parte Kenneth Eugene BILLUPS. (In re Kenneth Eugene Billups v. State of Alabama)
…prove identity, plan, and motive of the killer, not as bad character evidence.” State’s brief, p. 26.3 In Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), the United States Supreme Court stated that, when evidence of a defendant’s other crimes, wrongs, or acts is introduced under Rule 404(b), Fed.R.Evid., “the trial court shall, upon request, i…
Alabama opinions such as Ex parte Kenneth Eugene BILLUPS. (In re Kenneth Eugene Billups v. State of Alabama) are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "State’s brief, p. 26.3 In Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), the United States Supreme Court stated that, when evidence of a defendant’s other crimes, wrongs, or acts is introduced under Rule 404(b), Fed.R.Evid." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Ex Parte Melisa Jessica Lawrence.
Ex Parte Melisa Jessica Lawrence., 776 So. 2d 50 (2000)
…nce and that the State therefore was entitled to rebut that character evidence by evidence regarding other instances of Lawrence's negotiating worthless checks. We disagree. Even if we assumed, as the State suggests, that Lawrence's testimony injected her character into the trial, the State would not be entitled to introduce evidence of specific bad acts to rebut that evidence.…
Practitioners open Ex Parte Melisa Jessica Lawrence. when Alabama character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State therefore was entitled to rebut that character evidence by evidence regarding other instances of Lawrence's negotiating worthless checks. We disagree." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
David Allen Woodard v. State of Alabama.
David Allen Woodard v. State of Alabama., 846 So. 2d 1102 (2002)
…ground that evidence of the prior killing was inadmissible character evidence under Rule 404(b), Ala.R.Evid., that it was irrelevant, and that it was prejudicial.2 The trial court heard arguments on the motion before trial. The State argued that the statement was admissible because, it said, it was the reason Woodard gave police to explain why he could not have killed Childres…
Alabama opinions such as David Allen Woodard v. State of Alabama. are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Rule 404(b), Ala.R.Evid., that it was irrelevant, and that it was prejudicial.2 The trial court heard arguments on the motion before trial." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
William BROWNLEE v. STATE of Alabama
William BROWNLEE v. STATE of Alabama, 2015 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 90 (2015)
…he mind to indulge the criminal intent.” ’ [Charles Gamble, Character Evidence: A Comprehensive Approach 42 (1987).] : “ ‘ “Furthermore, testimony offered for the purpose of showing motive is always admissible. McClendon v. State, 243 Ala. 218, 8 So.2d 883 (1942). *1036Accord, Donahoo v. State, 505 So.2d 1067 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). ‘“It is permissible in every criminal case to sh…
Alabama opinions such as William BROWNLEE v. STATE of Alabama are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Charles Gamble, Character Evidence: A Comprehensive Approach 42 (1987).] : “ ‘ “Furthermore, testimony offered for the purpose of showing motive is always admissible. McClendon v. State, 243 Ala. 218, 8 So.2d 883 (1942). *1036Accord, Donahoo v. State, 505 So.2d 1067 (Ala.Crim.App." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Billy Joe Shields v. State.
Billy Joe Shields v. State., 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 63 (1996)
…new Alabama Rules of Evidence address the admissibility of character evidence of a victim: “(a) Character Evidence Generally. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving conformity therewith on a particular occasion except: [[Image here]] “(2) Character of Victim “(A) In Criminal Cases, (i) Evidence of a pertinent trait…
On character evidence, Billy Joe Shields v. State. speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "Alabama Rules of Evidence address the admissibility of character evidence of a victim: “(a) Character Evidence Generally." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Mark Edgar Ritchie v. State.
Mark Edgar Ritchie v. State., 808 So. 2d 71 (2001)
…the mind to indulge the criminal intent."' [Charles Gamble, Character Evidence: A Comprehensive Approach 42 (1987).] ""Furthermore, testimony offered for the purpose of showing motive is always admissible. McClendon v. State, 243 Ala. 218, 8 So.2d 883 (1942). Accord, Donahoo v. State, 505 So.2d 1067 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). "It is permissible in every criminal case to show that th…Mark Edgar Ritchie v. State. is worth reading on Alabama character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "Charles Gamble, Character Evidence: A Comprehensive Approach 42 (1987).] '`'Furthermore, testimony offered for the purpose of showing motive is always admissible. McClendon v. State, 243 Ala. 218, 8 So.2d 883 (1942). Accord, Donahoo v. State, 505 So.2d 1067 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Ex Parte Randolph Felease Harris. (In Re: Randolph Felease Harris v. State of Alabama).
…ed to have committed the criminal act. Rule 404 reads: "(a) Character Evidence Generally. Evidence of a person's character or a *Page 876 trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: "(1) Character of Accused. Evidence of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same.…
On character evidence, Ex Parte Randolph Felease Harris. (In Re: Randolph Felease Harris v. State of Alabama). speaks to the Alabama dispute in this passage: "Rule 404 reads: '(a) Character Evidence Generally. Evidence of a person's character or a *Page 876 trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: '(1) Character of Accused." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Alabama?
Alabama applies the Alabama Rules of Evidence. Alabama adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence nearly verbatim in 1996; practitioners treat Ala. R. Evid. numbering and structure as interchangeable with FRE analysis.
How do Alabama courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Ala. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Alabama?
Party-opponent statements under Ala. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Ala. R. Evid. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Alabama?
In civil cases, Ala. R. Civ. P. 32 governs when deposition testimony may be used at trial, including former-testimony and party-opponent scenarios. Criminal practitioners look to Ala. R. Crim. P. 15.7 and related discovery rules for deposition availability, which is narrower than in civil litigation. Deposition transcripts must still satisfy hearsay exceptions (often 804(b)(1) or party-opponent rules) before admission.
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Alabama authenticity practice starts with Ala. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Ala. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Ala. R. Evid. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.