green
Positive treatment
Issue: felony-murder doctrineAL ↗
Issue: impermissible inquiryAL ↗
Issue: lie detector testAL ↗
3.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Watkins v. State
(2×)
But see Freeman v. State , 555 So.2d 196 , 214-15 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd 555 So.2d 215 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 912 , 110 S.Ct. 2604 , 110 L.Ed.2d 284 *Page 563 (1990) (wherein, in a death penalty case, the court found that a Batson issue was not properly before the court because the jury strike list attached to a Rule 10(f) motion denied by the trial court should not be considered, because the designations of race on the list are merely assertions of counsel unsupported by the record, and because, during a hearing on the motion, the trial court found that no record of the voir d…
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. State
See Freeman v. State, 555 So.2d 196, 203 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 555 So.2d 215 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 912 , 110 S.Ct. 2604 , 110 L.Ed.2d 284 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Dallas v. State
See Freeman v. State , 555 So.2d 196 , 208-09 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), affirmed, 555 So.2d 215 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1046 , 111 S.Ct. 8 , 111 L.Ed.2d 823 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Buchannon v. State
See Johnson v. State, 555 So.2d 215, 216 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), reversed in part on other grounds, 555 So.2d 216 (Ala.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. State
See Freeman v. State , 555 So.2d 196 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd 555 So.2d 215 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 912 , 110 S.Ct. 2604 , 110 L.Ed.2d 284 (1990); Hooks v. State , 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050 , 109 S.Ct. 883 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989); Hays v. State , 518 So.2d 749 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 518 So.2d 768 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 929 , 108 S.Ct. 1099 , 99 L.Ed.2d 262 (1988); Tarver v. State , 500 So.2d 1232 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. State
See Freeman v. State, 555 So.2d 196 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd 555 So.2d 215 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 912 , 110 S.Ct. 2604 , 110 L.Ed.2d 284 (1990); Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050 , 109 S.Ct. 883 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989); Hays v. State, 518 So.2d 749 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 518 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 929 , 108 S.Ct. 1099 , 99 L.Ed.2d 262 (1988); Tarver v. State, 500 So.2d 1232 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd 500 So.2d 1256 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920 , 107…
cited
Cited "see"
Lawhorn v. State
See Freeman v. State , 555 So.2d 196 , 210 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd , 555 So.2d 215 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 2604 , 110 L.Ed.2d 284 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. State
Compare Freeman v. State, 555 So.2d 196, 208 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (‘the trial judge extensively instructed the jury on the difference between capital murder, felony murder, and intentional murder’), affirmed, 555 So.2d 215 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 912 , 110 S.Ct. 2604 , 110 L.Ed.2d 284 (1990); Davis v. State, 440 So.2d 1191, 1194 (Ala.Cr.App.1983) (trial court instructed jury on ‘the intent required for a capital felony, on the felony murder doctrine, and on the distinction between the intent required for a capital felony and the intent required for the lesser included offense of …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State ex rel. McLaughlin v. Vickers
See also Johnson v. State, 555 So.2d 215 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (petitioner’s failure to file habeas petition challenging the sufficiency of the indictment in the court where he was convicted did not require dismissal; the court in which the petition was filed should have transferred the case to the court wherein the petitioner was convicted); Griggs v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County, 16 Cal.3d 341 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 223 , 546 P.2d 727 (1976) (if the petition for habeas corpus relief challenges a particular judgment or sentence, the petition should be transferred to the court which render…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jackson v. State
See also Freeman v. State, 555 So.2d 196 (Ala. Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 555 So.2d 215 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 912 , 110 S.Ct. 2604 , 110 L.Ed.2d 284 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Starks v. State
Compare Freeman v. State , 555 So.2d 196 , 208 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) ("the trial judge extensively instructed the jury on the difference between capital murder, felony murder, and intentional murder"), affirmed, 555 So.2d 215 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 912 , 110 S.Ct. 2604 , 110 L.Ed.2d 284 (1990); Davis v. State , 440 So.2d 1191 , 1194 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983) (trial court instructed jury on "the intent required for a capital felony, on the felony murder doctrine, and on the distinction between the intent required for a capital felony and the intent required for the lesser included offense of…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Darryl Eugene Freeman. (Re Darryl Eugene Freeman
v.
State).
v.
State).
88-17.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Sep 8, 1989.
James M. Dyer and R. Wayne Wolfe, Huntsville, for petitioner. Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg and William D. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Kennedy.
Cited by 13 opinions | Published
In 1984, Darryl Eugene Freeman was convicted of capital murder based on a killing committed during a rape in the first degree or attempt thereof, Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(3). The jury recommended a sentence of life without parole. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to death by electrocution. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment in 1986; however, after the state filed an application for rehearing, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and conviction, in 1988. Freeman v. State, 555 So.2d 196 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988). This Court automatically issued the writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 39, A.R.App.P.
We adopt in toto the facts of the case as found inFreeman v. State, supra.
This Court has considered the issues raised by the petitioner, and after a thorough review of the record, the arguments, and the briefs of counsel, we find no error adversely affecting his substantial rights. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
ALMON, J., not sitting.