Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 15-25-37 (2026)
Factors in Considering Trustworthiness of Statement.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness pursuant to Section 15-25-32, the court shall consider any of the following factors:
(1) The witness’s personal knowledge of the event.
(2) The age and maturity of the witness.
(3) Certainty that the statement was made, including the credibility of the person testifying about the statement
(4) Any apparent motive the witness may have to falsify or distort the event, including bias, corruption, or coercion.
(5) The timing of the statement.
(6) Whether more than one person heard the statement.
(7) Whether the witness was suffering from pain or distress when making the statement.
(8) The nature and duration of any alleged abuse.
(9) Whether the witness’s young age or status as a protected person pursuant to Section 15-25-1 makes it unlikely that the witness fabricated a statement that represents a graphic, detailed account beyond the witness’s knowledge and experience.
(10) Whether the statement is spontaneous or directly responsive to questions.
(11) Whether the statement is suggestive due to improperly leading questions.
(12) Whether extrinsic evidence exists to show the defendant’s opportunity to commit the act complained of in the witness’s statement.
(Acts 1989, No. 89-876, p. 1754, §7; Act 2022-201, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1994–2011 · leading case: Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “However, we conclude that this technical noncompliance with § 15-25-38 was harmless because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out in § 15-25-37, we conclude that…”
Ex parte B.B.S. v. State, 647 So. 2d 709 (Ala. 1994). “The court was “inclined to agree” with this proposition, but nevertheless specifically considered the factors set out in § 15-25-37 and found that the statements possessed those particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.”
K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 991 (Ala. 2002). “…(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 Insurance Co. v. Foreman, 802…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1069 (Ala. 2005). “In addition to the corroboration requirement of § 15-25-34, § 15-25-37 provides that the child’s out-of-court hearsay statement must “possess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness”; in determining whether the statement possesses such particularized guarantees, the trial…”
M.L.H. v. State, 99 So. 3d 894 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “Counsel argued that the hearsay testimony contained in the video recording played at trial had not been shown to possess particularized guaranties of trustworthiness as required by § 15-25-37, Ala.Code. 1975. The circuit court denied this motion on the ground that, in its…”
KDH v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “However, we conclude that this technical noncompliance with § 15-25-38 was harmless because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out in § 15-25-37, we conclude that…”
Ex Parte KLH, 849 So. 2d 991 (Ala. 2002). “…(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 Insurance Co. v. Foreman, 802…”
P.D.F. v. State, 758 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “In order to determine the trustworthiness of a child’s hearsay statement, the court must analyze various factors under § 15-25-37, Ala. Code 1975, which provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section…”
Ex Parte BBS, 647 So. 2d 709 (Ala. 1994). “The court was "inclined to agree" with this proposition, but nevertheless specifically considered the factors set out in § 15-25-37 and found that the statements possessed those particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.”
Ex Parte CLY, 928 So. 2d 1069 (Ala. 2005). “In addition to the corroboration requirement of § 15-25-34, § 15-25-37 provides that the child's out-of-court hearsay statement must "possess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness"; in determining whether the statement possesses such particularized guarantees, the trial…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(1) — 2 cases
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(10) — 3 cases
K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “However, we conclude that this technical noncompliance with § 15-25-38 was harmless because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out in § 15-25-37, we conclude that…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
KDH v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “However, we conclude that this technical noncompliance with § 15-25-38 was harmless because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out in § 15-25-37, we conclude that…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(11) — 2 cases
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(13) — 4 cases
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “However, we conclude that this technical noncompliance with § 15-25-38 was harmless because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out in § 15-25-37, we conclude that…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
KDH v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “However, we conclude that this technical noncompliance with § 15-25-38 was harmless because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out in § 15-25-37, we conclude that…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(2) — 1 case
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(3) — 4 cases
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
K.D.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “However, we conclude that this technical noncompliance with § 15-25-38 was harmless because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out in § 15-25-37, we conclude that…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
KDH v. State, 849 So. 2d 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “However, we conclude that this technical noncompliance with § 15-25-38 was harmless because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out in § 15-25-37, we conclude that…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(4) — 2 cases
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(5) — 2 cases
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(6) — 2 cases
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(8) — 1 case
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
— Ala. Code § 15-25-37(9) — 2 cases
Steele v. State, 911 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). ““possess[ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” the trial court’s technical omission would be harmless “because, based on our review of the evidence and of the statutory factors regarding the trustworthiness of an out-of-court statement of a child victim, as set out…”
C.L.Y. v. State, 928 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 15-25-37, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under Section 15-25-32(2)b, the court shall consider any one, but is not limited to, the following factors: “(1) The child’s personal…”
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.