exclusionary rule in Alabama

2026Thus, the exclusionary rule serves to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. ' "The jury's determination of guilt or innocence should be based on evidence relevant to the crime charged." ' Ex parte Cofer, 440 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Ala. 1983); Terrell v. State, 397 So. 2d 232, 234 (Ala. [Crim.] App. 1981), cert. denied, 397 So. 2d 235 (Ala. 1981); United States v. Turquitt, 557 F.2d 464, 468 (5th Cir.1977). " ' " 'If the defendant's commission of another crime or misdeed is an element of guilt, or tends to prove his guilt otherwise than by showing of bad character, then proof of such other

2024Thus, the exclusionary rule serves to 16 CR-2023-0543 protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. " 'The jury's determination of guilt or innocence should be based on evidence relevant to the crime charged.' " Ex parte Cofer, 440 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Ala. 1983); Terrell v. State, 397 So. 2d 232, 234 (Ala. Cr.

2026Willis v. State, 449 So. 2d 1258, 1260 (Ala. [Crim.] App. 1984); Scott v. State, 353 So. 2d 36 (Ala. [Crim.] App. 1977).

2024Willis v. State, 449 So. 2d 1258, 1260 (Ala. Cr.

2026Thus, the exclusionary rule serves to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. ' "The jury's determination of guilt or innocence should be based on evidence relevant to the crime charged." ' Ex parte Cofer, 440 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Ala. 1983); Terrell v. State, 397 So. 2d 232, 234 (Ala. [Crim.] App. 1981), cert. denied, 397 So. 2d 235 (Ala. 1981); United States v. Turquitt, 557 F.2d 464, 468 (5th Cir.1977). " ' " 'If the defendant's commission of another crime or misdeed is an element of guilt, or tends to prove his guilt otherwise than by showing of bad character, then proof of such other

2016Thus, the exclusionary rule serves to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial. “ ‘The jury’s determination of guilt or innocence should be based on evidence relevant to the crime charged.’ ” Ex parte Gofer, 440 So.2d 1121, 1123 (Ala.1983); Terrell v. State, 397 So.2d 232, 234 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), cert, denied, 397 So.2d 235 (Ala.1981); United States v. Turquitt, 557 F.2d 464, 468 (5th Cir.1977). “ ‘ “If the defendant’s commission of another crime or misdeed is an element of guilt, or tends to prove his guilt otherwise than by showing of bad character, then proof of such other act is admiss

2026Thus, the exclusionary rule serves to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. ' "The jury's determination of guilt or innocence should be based on evidence relevant to the crime charged." ' Ex parte Cofer, 440 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Ala. 1983); Terrell v. State, 397 So. 2d 232, 234 (Ala. [Crim.] App. 1981), cert. denied, 397 So. 2d 235 (Ala. 1981); United States v. Turquitt, 557 F.2d 464, 468 (5th Cir.1977). " ' " 'If the defendant's commission of another crime or misdeed is an element of guilt, or tends to prove his guilt otherwise than by showing of bad character, then proof of such other

2024Thus, the exclusionary rule serves to 16 CR-2023-0543 protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. " 'The jury's determination of guilt or innocence should be based on evidence relevant to the crime charged.' " Ex parte Cofer, 440 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Ala. 1983); Terrell v. State, 397 So. 2d 232, 234 (Ala. Cr.

2011The other purposes for which collateral-crimes evidence may be admissible, i.e., the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, include: “ ‘(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, skill, or means to commit the now-charged crime; (2) part of the res gestae or part of a continuous transaction; (3) relevancy to prove scienter or guilty knowledge; (4) relevancy to prove criminal intent; (5) relevancy to prove plan, design, scheme, or system; (6) relevancy to prove motive; (7) relevancy to prove identity; (8) relevancy to rebut special defenses; and (9) relevancy in various particular crimes.’ “Nicks v

2011The other purposes for which collateral-crimes evidence may be admissible, i.e., the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, include: "`(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, skill, or means to commit the now-charged crime; (2) part of the res gestae or part of a continuous transaction; (3) relevancy to prove scienter or guilty knowledge; (4) relevancy to prove criminal intent; (5) relevancy to prove plan, design, scheme, or system; (6) relevancy to prove motive; (7) relevancy to prove identity; (8) relevancy to rebut special defenses; and (9) relevancy in various particular crimes.' " Nicks v

2016(Emphasis added.) “This Court has held that the exclusionary rule prevents the State from using evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts to prove the defendant’s bad character and, thereby, protects the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Ex parte Drinkard, 777 So.2d 295, 302 (Ala.2000).

2015“The Alabama Supreme Court has ‘held that the exclusionary rule prevents the State from using evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts to prove the defendant’s bad character and, thereby, protects the defendant’s right to a fair trial.’ Ex parte Drinkard, 777 So.2d 295, 302 (Ala.2000) (citing Ex parte Cofer, 440 So.2d 1121, 1123 (Ala.1983)).

2013Moreover, “ ‘[a] trial court will not be placed in error for assigning the wrong reason for a proper ruling, if that ruling is correct for any reason.’ ” Peraita v. State, 897 So.2d 1161, 1183 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), aff'd, 897 So.2d 1227 (Ala.2004) (quoting Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018, 1030-31 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 521 So.2d 1035 (Ala.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1241 , 108 S.Ct. 2916 , 101 L.Ed.2d 948 (1988)). [[Image here]] “ ‘In Robinson v. State, 528 So.2d 343 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), this Court discussed the purpose of the exclusionary rule, stating: “ ““ “On the trial of a person for the

2011The other purposes for which collateral-crimes evidence may be admissible, i.e., the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, include: “ ‘ “(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, skill, or means to commit the now-charged crime; (2) part of the res gestae or part of a continuous transaction; (3) relevancy to prove scienter or guilty knowledge; (4) relevancy to prove criminal intent; (5) relevancy to prove plan, design, scheme, or system; (6) relevancy to prove motive; (7) relevancy to prove identity; (8) relevancy to rebut special defenses; and (9) relevancy in various particular crimes.” ’ “Nic

2016This is a general exclusionary rule which prevents the introduction of prior criminal acts for the sole purpose of suggesting that the accused is more likely to be guilty of the crime in question.’ ” Pope v. State, 365 So.2d 369, 371 (Ala.Crim.App.1978), quoting C.

2013This is a general exclusionary rule which prevents the introduction of prior criminal acts for the sole purpose of suggesting that the accused is more likely to be guilty of the crime in question.” ’ Pope v. State, 365 So.2d 369, 371 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), quoting C.

1990"The intent exception [to the exclusionary rule prohibiting the admission of evidence of collateral crimes to prove the guilt of the accused] is simply not applicable in a case that requires no specific criminal intent as a prerequisite to conviction." Anonymous , 507 So.2d at 975 ; Bowden , 538 So.2d at 1235 .

1988As Justice Maddox stated in his dissent in Bowden v. State, 538 So.2d 1226 (Ala.1988), cases involving sex crimes should be treated differently from other cases; such crimes are not on the same level as other crimes, and the general exceptions to the exclusionary rule should not be as narrowly limited as they are in Bowden .

2010Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 69.01(1) at 300-01 (5th ed. 1996) (footnotes omitted). ‘This rule is generally applicable whether the other crime or act was committed before or after the one for which the defendant is presently being tried.’ Id. at 300. “ ‘[Ejvidence of collateral offenses may be admissible under certain exceptions to the exclusionary rule or for “other purposes” than to prove the accused’s guilt.’ Williamson v. State, 629 So.2d 777, 780 (Ala.Cr.App.1993).

2007Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence , § 69.01(1) at 300-01 (5th ed. 1996) (footnotes omitted). `This rule is generally applicable whether the other crime or act was committed before or after the one for which the defendant is presently being tried.' Id. at 300. "`[E]vidence of collateral offenses may be admissible under certain exceptions to the exclusionary rule or for "other purposes" than to prove the accused's guilt.' Williamson v. State , 629 So.2d 777 , 780 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993).

2011The other purposes for which collateral-crimes evidence may be admissible, i.e., the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, include: “ ‘ “(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, skill, or means to commit the now-charged crime; (2) part of the res gestae or part of a continuous transaction; (3) relevancy to prove scienter or guilty knowledge; (4) relevancy to prove criminal intent; (5) relevancy to prove plan, design, scheme, or system; (6) relevancy to prove motive; (7) relevancy to prove identity; (8) relevancy to rebut special defenses; and (9) relevancy in various particular crimes.” ’ “Nic

2011The other purposes for which collateral-crimes evidence may be admissible, i.e., the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, include: "`(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, skill, or means to commit the now-charged crime; (2) part of the res gestae or part of a continuous transaction; (3) relevancy to prove scienter or guilty knowledge; (4) relevancy to prove criminal intent; (5) relevancy to prove plan, design, scheme, or system; (6) relevancy to prove motive; (7) relevancy to prove identity; (8) relevancy to rebut special defenses; and (9) relevancy in various particular crimes.' " Nicks v

2026The exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs," United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large.

2026The exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs," United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large.

2026In time, however, we came to acknowledge the exclusionary rule for what it undoubtedly is--a 'judicially created remedy' of this Court's own making. [United States v.] Calandra, [ 414 U.S. 338 ,] 348 [(1974)].

2016And since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 [, 94 S.Ct. 613 (1974)], it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the rule’s protections.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. at 134 .

2009As the majority recognizes, the common plan, scheme, or design exception to the exclusionary rule "is essentially coextensive with the identity exception" and must be analyzed under the same standards. [3] Ex parte Darby, 516 So.2d 786, 789 (Ala. 1987). "[T]he plan, scheme, or design exception is an extension of the identity exception—where the charged crime and the collateral crime are committed in the same novel or peculiar manner, evidence of the collateral crime is admissible to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime." Register v. State, 640 So.2d 3, 6 (Ala.Crim.App

2009As the majority recognizes, the common plan, scheme, or design exception to the exclusionary rule “is essentially coextensive with the identity exception” and must be analyzed under the same standards. 3 Ex parte Darby, 516 So.2d 786, 789 (Ala.1987). “[T]he plan, scheme, or design exception is an extension of the identity exception — where the charged crime and the collateral crime are committed in the same novel or peculiar manner, evidence of the collateral crime is admissible to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime.” Register v. State, 640 So.2d 3, 6 (Ala.Crim.App.

2010For instance, in New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 17-21 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applied in Payton, 445 U.S. at 587-88 , does not require the suppression of a confession made outside of the home by a defendant who was arrested in the home upon probable cause but without exigent circumstances in violation of Payton .

2010For instance, in New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 17-21 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applied in Payton, 445 U.S. at 587-88 , does not require the suppression of a confession made outside of the home by a defendant who was arrested in the home upon probable cause but without exigent circumstances in violation of Payton .

2016And since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 [, 94 S.Ct. 613 (1974)], it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the rule’s protections.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. at 134 .

2004And since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1974), it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the rule’s protections.” 439 U.S. at 133-34 , 99 S.Ct. 421 (footnote omitted).

2013Moreover, “ ‘[a] trial court will not be placed in error for assigning the wrong reason for a proper ruling, if that ruling is correct for any reason.’ ” Peraita v. State, 897 So.2d 1161, 1183 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), aff'd, 897 So.2d 1227 (Ala.2004) (quoting Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018, 1030-31 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 521 So.2d 1035 (Ala.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1241 , 108 S.Ct. 2916 , 101 L.Ed.2d 948 (1988)). [[Image here]] “ ‘In Robinson v. State, 528 So.2d 343 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), this Court discussed the purpose of the exclusionary rule, stating: “ ““ “On the trial of a person for the

2011The other purposes for which collateral-crimes evidence may be admissible, i.e., the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, include: “ ‘ “(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, skill, or means to commit the now-charged crime; (2) part of the res gestae or part of a continuous transaction; (3) relevancy to prove scienter or guilty knowledge; (4) relevancy to prove criminal intent; (5) relevancy to prove plan, design, scheme, or system; (6) relevancy to prove motive; (7) relevancy to prove identity; (8) relevancy to rebut special defenses; and (9) relevancy in various particular crimes.” ’ “Nic

2016More specifically, it argues that the drugs would have been discovered inevitably and thus were admissible under that exception to the exclusionary rule. • In Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court recognized that evidence illegally discovered by police may still be admissible if “the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” 467 U.S. at 444 .

2016More specifically, it argues that the drugs would have been discovered inevitably and thus were admissible under that exception to the exclusionary rule. • In Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court recognized that evidence illegally discovered by police may still be admissible if “the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” 467 U.S. at 444 .

2017Hunter v. State , 802 So.2d 265 (Ala. Crim.

2017Hunter v. State , 802 So.2d 265 (Ala. Crim.