Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 15-25-33 (2026)

Expert Testimony as to Unavailability of Child to Testify.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THIS SECTION WAS REPEALED IN THE 2022 REGULAR SESSION BY ACT 2022-201 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022. THIS IS NOT IN THE CURRENT CODE SUPPLEMENT.

(Acts 1989, No. 89-876, p. 1754, §4.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1994–2004 · leading case: K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “as required by § 15-25-38, and (2) if the court did determine that the victim was unavailable, that determination was not supported by expert testimony, as required by § 15-25-33. (Issues I, II, and V in the appellant’s brief.”
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Steele also contends that the videotaped statement should not have been admitted into evidence because no expert testimony was offered to establish that the child was unavailable to testify, § 15-25-33, Ala. Code 1975; the State failed to produce corroborative evidence of the…”
K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 991 (Ala. 2002). · cites it 3× “…v. State, 849 So.2d 983 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), which rationalizes outright violations by the trial court of § 15-25-32, § 15-25-33, § 15-25-34, § 15-25-37, and § 15-25-38, Ala.Code 1975, conflicts with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patterson, 816 So.2d 1, 6 (Ala.2001), and Omni…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “Code 1975; that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the child’s out-of-court statements because, he argues, there was no corroborative evidence of the act pursuant to § 15-25-33, Ala.Code 1975; that the trial court did not make specific findings of fact…”
Latimer v. State, 659 So. 2d 129 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Although § 15-25-33 and § 15-25-34 do not explicitly state that they apply only to subsection (2), this is clearly the case, as § 15-25-33 deals with expert testimony supporting the unavailability of the child to testify, and § 15-25-34 deals with corroborative evidence as a…”
KDH v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “as required by § 15-25-38, and (2) if the court did determine that the victim was unavailable, that determination was not supported by expert testimony, as required by § 15-25-33. (Issues I, II, and V in the appellant's brief.”
Ex Parte KLH, 849 So. 2d 991 (Ala. 2002). · cites it 3× “…v. State, 849 So.2d 983 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), which rationalizes outright violations by the trial court of § 15-25-32, § 15-25-33, § 15-25-34, § 15-25-37, and § 15-25-38, Ala.Code 1975, conflicts with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patterson, 816 So.2d 1, 6 (Ala.2001), and Omni…”
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.