Did the Trial Court err in admitting testimony by a third party that the State's witness identified appellant's picture from a group of 40 pictures? Martin v. State, Fla., 129 So.2d 112; Aaron v. State, 273 Ala. 337, 139 So.2d 309; 29 Am.Jur.Evidence, Sec. 373. Did the Trial Court err in admitting into evidence a coat and Ball-peen hammer found approximately five days after the homicide which was never proved to be the property of the appellant and was found approximately three blocks from the scene of the homicide? Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287. Did the Trial Court err in admitting into evidence the results of tests run on the clothing of appellant which revealed the presence of blood and brain tissue when it was shown that two of the officers taking the appellant's clothing had been at the scene of the homicide, one collecting blood samples and particles of brain tissue and the other handling the victim's body and neither had washed or cleansed their hands before taking the clothing? Lackey v. State, 54 Ala. App. 693, 312 So.2d 96; 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, Sec. 774. Did the Trial Court err in admitting evidence of appellant's conviction for resisting arrest?
Whether evidence is admissible because of remoteness is largely within the trial court's discretion. Pitts v. State, 40 Ala. App. 702, 122 So.2d 542; Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287. Admission of hair samples into evidence is not testimonial or communicative evidence and does not violate defendant's right against self-incrimination. Hubbard v. State, 283 Ala. 183, 215 So.2d 261. Objection to evidence must be made when the evidence is offered. Walker v. State, 265 Ala. 233, 90 So.2d 221.
“Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala.App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959).
"'"Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala.App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). "'"While remoteness of time alone does not render the prior event inadmissible, Fields v. State, 362 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), the trial court 'is without discretion to admit a statement that is so remote as to time or circumstances that its relevance or materiality must rest in conjecture and speculation.'
"`Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). "`While remoteness of time alone does not render the prior event inadmissible, Fields v. State, 362 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), the trial court "is without discretion to admit a statement that is so remote as to time or circumstances that its relevance or materiality must rest in conjecture and speculation.
"Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287 (1959)." Palmer v. State, 401 So.2d 266, 269 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 270 (Ala. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1280, 71 L.Ed.2d 463 (1982).
" Smitherman v. State, 33 Ala. App. 316, 318-319, 33 So.2d 396 (1948). "Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). "While remoteness of time alone does not render the prior event inadmissible, Fields v. State, 362 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), the trial court 'is without discretion to admit a statement that is so remote as to time or circumstances that its relevance or materiality must rest in conjecture and speculation.' Roberson v. State, 339 So.2d 100, 104 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied 339, So.2d 104 (Ala. 1976).
Of course, it can be said with certainty that the tendered evidence must not be so remote in point of time as to be without causal connection or logical relation to the main fact.' "Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). See C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, Section 21.01(2) (3d ed. 1977)."
" Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). See C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, Section 21.01 (2) (3rd ed. 1977).
Smitherman v. State, 33 Ala. App. 316, 318-319, 33 So.2d 396 (1948). Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). While remoteness of time alone does not render the prior event inadmissible, Fields v. State, 362 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), the trial court "is without discretion to admit a statement that is so remote as to time or circumstances that its relevance or materiality must rest in conjecture and speculation". Roberson v. State, 339 So.2d 100, 104 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 104 (Ala. 1976).