Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 12-22-241 (2026)
Consideration of Automatic Appeals; Reversal of Judgment and Granting of New Trial.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
In all cases of automatic appeals, the appellate court may consider, at its discretion, any testimony that was seriously prejudicial to the rights of the appellant and may reverse thereon, even though no objection was made thereto. The appellate court shall consider all of the testimony; and, if upon such consideration it is of opinion the verdict is so decidedly contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to be wrong and unjust and that upon that ground a new trial should be had, the court shall enter an order of reversal of the judgment and grant a new trial, though no motion to that effect was presented in the court below.
(Acts 1943, No. 249, p. 217, §10.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1978–2004 · leading case: Julius v. State, 407 So. 2d 141 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980).
Julius v. State, 407 So. 2d 141 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980). “1977), so that even the old plain error rule which was limited to "any testimony that was seriously prejudicial to the rights of the appellant" (emphasis added), Ala. Code 1975, § 12-22-241, did not apply and was not applied in those cases.”
Lewis v. State, 380 So. 2d 970 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980). “Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-241 and authorities there cited.”
Taylor v. State, 10 So. 3d 1037 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “1958); § 12-22-241, Ala.Code 1975. In Echols v. State, 47 Ala.”
Clements v. State, 370 So. 2d 708 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978). “Title 15, Section 382(10), Code of Alabama 1940 (Recompiled 1958), now Section 12-22-241, Code of Alabama 1975, provides as follows: "Hearing and determination in appellate court.”
Ford v. State, 515 So. 2d 34 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). “) Society's interest in the fairness, reliability, and integrity of the trial of a capital case is preserved in this case because of Alabama's plain error rule, A.”
Evans v. State, 361 So. 2d 666 (Ala. 1978). “The terms of § 12-22-241, Code of Ala. 1975, authorizing the appellate court to consider any testimony seriously prejudicial even in the absence of objection, do not limit that duty to the transcript of the evidence.”
Watters v. State, 369 So. 2d 1272 (Ala. 1979). “The terms of § 12-22-241, Ala.Code of 1975, authorizing the appellate court to consider any testimony seriously prejudicial even in the absence of objection, do not limit that duty to the transcript of the evidence.”
Ritter v. State, 375 So. 2d 266 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978). “Besides those points raised in Judge Bookout's opinion, I disagree with the statement that "other issues were intelligently and understandingly waived by Appellant Ritter, as well as by Appellant Evans".”
Jones v. State, 387 So. 2d 284 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980). “State , cited by appellant in the quoted portion of his brief, it was stated, after remandment, in reference to the remarks, conduct and attitude of the trial judge during the trial: "In each of the instances we have copies from the record, counsel for appellant excepted to the…”
Jacobs v. State, 371 So. 2d 448 (Ala. 1979). “The State argues that we cannot consider the trial court's oral instructions because they were not objected to by the petitioner.”
Bracewell v. State, 407 So. 2d 827 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979). “These rules prevail even under Section 12-22-241, Code of Alabama 1975 , our "plain error" statute governing consideration of automatic appeals in capital cases.”
Harris v. State, 552 So. 2d 857 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). “1980); Alabama Code 1975, § 12-22-241; A.R.A.P., Rule 45A.”
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.