Lane argues, however, that the lack of similarity in circumstances affected only the weight of the experiment, not its admissibility. In support of that argument, Lane cites Eddy v. State, 352 So. 2d 1161 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977) -- a manslaughter case in which the defendant objected to testimony from a toxicologist who had performed tests with the firearm that killed the victim in order to determine how close the firearm would have to be to the victim before it would leave gunpowder residue on the victim's body. According to the defendant, the toxicologist's tests were inadmissible because, the defendant said, the tests "did not show โsimilarity in the essential conditions at the time of the occurrence and at the time of the experiment.โ "
โโ โ โSee also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).โ
If we have a case where the conditions are not identical, then the dissimilarity goes to the weight of the evidence of the experiment but not to its admissibility.โ โSee also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).โIvey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278โ79 (Ala.Crim.App.1979)
If we have a case where the conditions are not identical, then the dissimilarity goes to the weight of the evidence of the experiment but not to its admissibility.' "See also Eddy v. State, 352 So. 2d 1161 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977)." Ivey v. State, 369 So. 2d 1276, 1278-79 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979).
" "'See also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977).'
' "See also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977)." Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278-79 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979).
As a general rule, however, where the defendant injects a particular issue into evidence, the State is allowed to develop the matter in its cross-examination. Hinkle v. State, 50 Ala. App. 215, 278 So.2d 218 (1973); Williams v. State, 451 So.2d 411 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Huffman v. State, 360 So.2d 1038 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), aff'd, 360 So.2d 1045 (Ala. 1978); Green v. State, 352 So.2d 1149 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977); Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977). This rule applies even where the subsequent evidence is otherwise improper or illegal. Morgan v. State, 440 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).
We hold that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude, by fair inference, that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Wiggins v. State, 354 So.2d 340 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978); Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977). Therefore, we will not disturb this conviction on appeal. Hurst v. State, 397 So.2d 203 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 397 So.2d 208 (Ala. 1981).
In deciding this issue there are several controlling authorities. In Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), testimony was admitted that there had been fights between the defendant and the victim on previous occasions. The court, however, declined to allow the state to go into details concerning these fights.
Based on the foregoing facts, the jury verdict of first degree manslaughter is well supported. Wiggins v. State, 354 So.2d 340 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977); Ala. Code ยง 13-1-90 (1975). II.