Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 15-25-32 (2026)
Out-of-Court Statement - Requirements for Admissibility.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
An out-of-court statement may be admitted as provided in Section 15-25-31, if either of the following occur:
(1) The witness testifies at the proceeding, testifies by means of video deposition as provided by Section 15-25-2, or testifies by means of closed circuit television as is provided in Section 15-25-3, and at the time of the testimony is subject to cross-examination about the out-of-court statements.
(2) The court finds that the witness’s out-of-court statement is shown to the reasonable satisfaction of the court to possess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant or someone acting on behalf of the defendant has intentionally removed the witness from the jurisdiction of the court or that the defendant engaged in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the witness.
(Acts 1989, No. 89-876, p. 1754, §3; Act 2022-201, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “The trial court specifically charged the jury on three separate occasions that it was free to afford the out-of-court statements of G.”
L.J.K. v. State, 942 So. 2d 854 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). “first contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the testimony of Teresa Robbins and Sherry Shaw regarding the hearsay statements of M.”
Gerald P. VanPatten v. State of Indiana, 986 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2013). “2009) (recognizing Crawford partially abrogated Ala. Code § 15-25-32 ); People v. Moreno, 160 P.”
T.P. v. State, 911 So. 2d 1117 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “After hearing expert testimony to the effect that forcing the victim to testify could result in emotional trauma to the victim, the circuit court determined that the victim was “unavailable to testify,” *1121 and that his out-of-court statements to Buehler were admissible under…”
TP v. State, 911 So. 2d 1117 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “After hearing expert testimony to the effect that forcing the victim to testify could result in emotional trauma to the victim, the circuit court determined that the victim was "unavailable to testify," *1121 and that his out-of-court statements to Buehler were admissible under…”
Ex parte B.B.S. v. State, 647 So. 2d 709 (Ala. 1994). “The attorney also stated that he was offering the evidence under § 15-25-32 “to rebut the out-of-court statements.”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “out-of-court statement made by a child under 12 years of age at the time of the proceeding concerning an act that is a material element of any crime involving child physical offense, sexual offense, and exploitation, as defined in Section 15-25-39, which statement is not…”
R.D. v. State, 706 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). “He also asserts that the children’s out-of-court statements to others were erroneously admitted, because, he says, the State did not establish the statements’ trustworthiness as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 15-25-32. A ■ The children were deposed on videotape pursuant to Ala.”
K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “out-of-court statement made by a child under 12 years of age at the time of the proceeding concerning an act that is a material element of any crime involving child physical offense, sexual offense, and exploitation, as defined in Section 15-25-39, which statement is not…”
Snowden v. State, 846 A.2d 36 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004). “Ala.Code § 15-25-32 (2003); Ariz.Rev.Stat.”
Campos v. State, 217 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). “Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting the hearsay testimony and video pursuant to § 15-25-32. In his brief, Campos acknowledges that § 15-25-31 may have applied; however, he argues that the State did not assert that statute, nor did it comply with the notice requirement…”
D.G. v. State, 76 So. 3d 852 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “of § 15-25-32(2), § 15-25-32 still requires the de-clarant’s unavailability in order to admit an out-of-court statement made by a child under the age of 12.”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-32(1) — 11 cases
Campos v. State, 217 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). “Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting the hearsay testimony and video pursuant to § 15-25-32. In his brief, Campos acknowledges that § 15-25-31 may have applied; however, he argues that the State did not assert that statute, nor did it comply with the notice requirement…”
M.L.H. v. State, 99 So. 3d 894 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “The trial court specifically charged the jury on three separate occasions that it was free to afford the out-of-court statements of G.”
Ex Parte State, 1101398 (Ala. 12-2-2011), 99 So. 3d 911 (Ala. 2011).
Latimer v. State, 659 So. 2d 129 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994).
— Ala. Code § 15-25-32(2) — 21 cases
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “The trial court specifically charged the jury on three separate occasions that it was free to afford the out-of-court statements of G.”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “out-of-court statement made by a child under 12 years of age at the time of the proceeding concerning an act that is a material element of any crime involving child physical offense, sexual offense, and exploitation, as defined in Section 15-25-39, which statement is not…”
K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “out-of-court statement made by a child under 12 years of age at the time of the proceeding concerning an act that is a material element of any crime involving child physical offense, sexual offense, and exploitation, as defined in Section 15-25-39, which statement is not…”
T.P. v. State, 911 So. 2d 1117 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “After hearing expert testimony to the effect that forcing the victim to testify could result in emotional trauma to the victim, the circuit court determined that the victim was “unavailable to testify,” *1121 and that his out-of-court statements to Buehler were admissible under…”
TP v. State, 911 So. 2d 1117 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “After hearing expert testimony to the effect that forcing the victim to testify could result in emotional trauma to the victim, the circuit court determined that the victim was "unavailable to testify," *1121 and that his out-of-court statements to Buehler were admissible under…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-32(2)(a) — 2 cases
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “out-of-court statement made by a child under 12 years of age at the time of the proceeding concerning an act that is a material element of any crime involving child physical offense, sexual offense, and exploitation, as defined in Section 15-25-39, which statement is not…”
State Dep't of Human Resources v. Gibert, 681 So. 2d 564 (Ala. 1996).
— Ala. Code § 15-25-32(2)(a)(6) — 1 case
State Dept. of Human Resources v. Gibert, 681 So. 2d 560 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
— Ala. Code § 15-25-32(2)(b) — 3 cases
State Dept. of Human Resources v. Gibert, 681 So. 2d 560 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
P.D.F. v. State, 758 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
State of Alabama v. Abraham Hatch (Ala. Crim. App. 2026).
— Ala. Code § 15-25-32(3) — 5 cases
Ex parte B.B.S. v. State, 647 So. 2d 709 (Ala. 1994). “The attorney also stated that he was offering the evidence under § 15-25-32 “to rebut the out-of-court statements.”
L.J.K. v. State, 942 So. 2d 854 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). “first contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the testimony of Teresa Robbins and Sherry Shaw regarding the hearsay statements of M.”
R.D.W. v. State, 773 So. 2d 426 (Ala. 2000).
Ex Parte BBS, 647 So. 2d 709 (Ala. 1994).
Ex Parte RDW, 773 So. 2d 426 (Ala. 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.