Paris v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co

How later courts describe this case

• holding that Key would not have been entitled to relief on his claim that § 13A-5^40(a)(17
• “ ‘ “[T]he prosecutor, as well as defense counsel, has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.’” Reeves v. State, 807 So.2d 18, 45 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), quoting Rutledge v. State, 523 So.2d 1087, 1100 (Ala.Crim.App.1987
• " ' “[T]estimony that may be inadmissible may be rendered harmless by prior or subsequent lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred.” ’ See also Dawson v. State, 675 So.2d 897, 900 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), affirmed, 675 So.2d 905 (Ala.1996