Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 12-16-152 (2026)
Challenges of Jurors for Cause - Additional Grounds for Challenge by State in Certain Cases.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence.
(Code 1852, §630; Code 1867, §4182; Code 1876, §4883; Code 1886, §4333; Code 1896, §5018; Code 1907, §7278; Code 1923, §8612; Code 1940, T. 30, §57.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Lee v. State, 898 So. 2d 790 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
Lee v. State, 898 So. 2d 790 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “" § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975. "The trial judge is given much discretion in determining whether a potential juror should be struck for cause.”
Freeman v. State, 555 So. 2d 196 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). “III The appellant alleges that § 12-16-152, Code of Alabama (1975), denied him due process and equal protection in regard to challenging veniremen for cause under Witherspoon v.”
Wilson v. State, 777 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “Because the appellant did not object at trial to the dismissal of these veniremembers, we must review this claim for plain error.”
Sneed v. State, 1 So. 3d 104 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). “” § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975. “The trial judge is given much discretion in determining whether a potential juror should be struck for cause.”
McCray v. State, 88 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “Section 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence…”
Morris v. State, 60 So. 3d 326 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “According to § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975: “On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence…”
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “Because the appellant did not object at trial to the dismissal of these veniremembers, we must review this claim for plain error.”
Dobyne v. State, 672 So. 2d 1319 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “The next jurors struck for cause were two jurors who stated that they could not impose the death penalty under any circumstances.”
Edwards v. State, 452 So. 2d 487 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). “The contention is based on one statement made by counsel while counsel was moving the trial court for individual voir dire of the venire.”
Hutcherson v. State, 677 So. 2d 1174 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “Section 12-16-152, Code of Alabama 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the…”
Jones v. State, 43 So. 3d 1258 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). “) Based on their responses, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the challenged veniremembers were ineligible to serve pursuant to § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting the State’s challenges for cause of these…”
Riley v. State, 166 So. 3d 705 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). ““According to § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975: “ ‘On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence…”
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.