contemporaneous objection rule in Alabama

177 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 13 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (36)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Fradygreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 165 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1987–2026 2 sentences 2018In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." United States v. Frady , 456 U.S., at 163 , n.14 .' " See also Ex parte Hodges , 856 So.2d 936 , 947-48 (Ala. 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would 'seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' and that the plain-error doctrine is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would oth 2018In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." United States v. Frady , 456 U.S., at 163 , n.14 .' " See also Ex parte Hodges , 856 So.2d 936 , 947-48 (Ala. 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would 'seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' and that the plain-error doctrine is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would oth	60	165
Burton v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1993 · cited in 51 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1994–2014 2 sentences 2014Further, “‘“the plain[-]error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.”” Whitehead v. State, [ 777 So.2d 781 ], at 794, [ (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ], quoting Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim. 2012Brooks v. State, 973 So.2d 380, 387 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). “‘[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be “used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” ’ ” Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), quoting in turn, United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)).	40	51
Hall v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1999 · cited in 27 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2007–2018 2 sentences 2014P., provides: “In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.” In Wilson v. State, 142 So.3d 782, 751 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (opinion on return to remand), this Court stated: “ ‘[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be “used sparingly, sole 2014P., provides: "In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant." In Wilson v. State , 142 So.3d 732 , 751 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (opinion on return to remand), this Court stated: " '[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, so	21	27
Ex Parte Hodgesgreen ala · 2003 · cited in 24 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2004–2018 2 sentences 2018In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." United States v. Frady , 456 U.S., at 163 , n.14 .' " See also Ex parte Hodges , 856 So.2d 936 , 947-48 (Ala. 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would 'seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' and that the plain-error doctrine is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would oth 2018In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." United States v. Frady , 456 U.S., at 163 , n.14 .' " See also Ex parte Hodges , 856 So.2d 936 , 947-48 (Ala. 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would 'seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' and that the plain-error doctrine is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would oth	16	24
United States v. Younggreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 139 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1987–2026 2 sentences 2026App. 2010). '[T]he plain error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." ' United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S. Ct. 1038 , 84 L. 2026App. 2010). '[T]he plain error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." ' United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S. Ct. 1038 , 84 L.	15	139
Ex Parte Landgreen ala · 1996 · cited in 15 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1998–2016 2 sentences 2016See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ' “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise-result.”” Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “subst 2015See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ‘ “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ ” ’ Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “su	12	15
Ex Parte Woodallgreen ala · 1998 · cited in 14 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2016 2 sentences 2016See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ' “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise-result.”” Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “subst 2015See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ‘ “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ ” ’ Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “su	12	14
Lejeune v. Texasgreen scotus · 2001 · cited in 11 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2016 2 sentences 2016See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ' “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise-result.”” Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “subst 2015See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ‘ “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ ” ’ Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “su	10	11
Ex Parte Hydegreen ala · 2000 · cited in 11 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2016 2 sentences 2016See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ' “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise-result.”” Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “subst 2015See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ‘ “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ ” ’ Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “su	10	11
Hyde v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1998 · cited in 11 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2016 2 sentences 2016See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ' “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise-result.”” Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “subst 2015See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ‘ “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ ” ’ Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “su	10	11
Keen v. Tennesseegreen scotus · 2001 · cited in 10 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2016 2 sentences 2016See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ' “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise-result.”” Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “subst 2015See also Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ‘ “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ ” ’ Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “su	9	10
United States v. Adrian Pielago, Maria Varonagreen ca11 · 1998 · cited in 10 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2013 2 sentences 2013See generally, e.g., United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir. 1998) (‘The contemporaneous objection rule fosters finality of judgment and deters-“sandbagging” saving an issue for appeal in hope of having another shot at trial if the first one misses.’); United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654 , 666 n. 12 (2d Cir.2003) (‘[W]e do not want to encourage lawyers to “test [their] fortunes with the first jury,” while knowing there will be a “second round in the évent of a ■conviction.” 'McCrory [o. 2013See generally, e.g., United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998) (‘The contemporaneous objection rule fosters finality of judgment and deters “sandbagging” saving an issue for appeal in hope of having another shot at trial if the first one misses.’); United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654 , 666 n. 12 (2d Cir.2003) (‘[W]e do not want to encourage lawyers to “test [their] fortunes with the first jury,” while knowing there will be a “second round in the event of a conviction.” McCrory [v. Henderson], 82 F.3d [1243,] at 1247 [(2d Cir.1996) ].’).	9	10
United States v. Kinggreen ca11 · 1996 · cited in 6 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2007 2 sentences 2007Because the contemporaneous objection rule is essential to the integrity and efficiency of our judicial process, we have stressed that `the plain error test is difficult to meet.' United States v. King, 73 F.3d 1564, 1572 (11th Cir.1996); accord, e.g., United States v. Sorondo, 845 F.2d at 948-49 ; United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148 , 1152 n. 4 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)." "` United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998). "`"While the plain error doctrine lessens the blow of a rigid application of the contemporaneous objection requirement, it is to be used sparingly, since the un 2007Because the contemporaneous objection rule is essential to the integrity and efficiency of our judicial process, we have stressed that `the plain error test is difficult to meet.' United States v. King, 73 F.3d 1564, 1572 (11th Cir.1996); accord, e.g., United States v. Sorondo, 845 F.2d at 948-49 ; United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148 , 1152 n. 4 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)." "` United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998). "`"While the plain error doctrine lessens the blow of a rigid application of the contemporaneous objection requirement, it is to be used sparingly, since the un	5	6
United States v. Albert Sorondogreen ca11 · 1988 · cited in 4 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2007 2 sentences 2007Because the contemporaneous objection rule is essential to the integrity and efficiency of our judicial process, we have stressed that `the plain error test is difficult to meet.' United States v. King, 73 F.3d 1564, 1572 (11th Cir.1996); accord, e.g., United States v. Sorondo, 845 F.2d at 948-49 ; United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148 , 1152 n. 4 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)." "` United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998). "`"While the plain error doctrine lessens the blow of a rigid application of the contemporaneous objection requirement, it is to be used sparingly, since the un 2007Because the contemporaneous objection rule is essential to the integrity and efficiency of our judicial process, we have stressed that `the plain error test is difficult to meet.' United States v. King, 73 F.3d 1564, 1572 (11th Cir.1996); accord, e.g., United States v. Sorondo, 845 F.2d at 948-49 ; United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148 , 1152 n. 4 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)." "` United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998). "`"While the plain error doctrine lessens the blow of a rigid application of the contemporaneous objection requirement, it is to be used sparingly, since the un	4	4
Ex Parte Browngreen ala · 2008 · cited in 25 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2018 2 sentences 2018In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." United States v. Frady , 456 U.S., at 163 , n.14 .' " See also Ex parte Hodges , 856 So.2d 936 , 947-48 (Ala. 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would 'seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' and that the plain-error doctrine is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would oth 2018In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result." United States v. Frady , 456 U.S., at 163 , n.14 .' " See also Ex parte Hodges , 856 So.2d 936 , 947-48 (Ala. 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would 'seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' and that the plain-error doctrine is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would oth	3	25
Wilson v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2010 · cited in 4 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014 2 sentences 2014P., provides: "In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant." In Wilson v. State , 142 So.3d 732 , 751 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (opinion on return to remand), this Court stated: " '[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, so 2013P., provides: “In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.” In Wilson v. State, 142 So.3d 732, 750 (Ala.Crim.App.2012), this Court stated: “‘[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be “used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in wh	3	4
Centobie v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2001 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2014 2 sentences 2014App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995).” Centobie v. State, 861 So.2d 1111, 1118 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). 2005P., provides: "`In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.' "This court has recognized that `"the plain error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise res	3	3
Brooks v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2007 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2012	3	3
Eggers v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2005 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2011	3	3
Ex Parte Bryantgreen ala · 2002 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2007	3	3
Dunaway v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1998 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1999–2000	3	3
Wainwright v. Sykesgreen scotus · 1977 · cited in 4 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1989–2007 2 sentences 1989While the "novelty" of an issue may constitute cause for the failure to raise that issue on appeal, the cause and prejudice test for excusing compliance with a State's contemporaneous-objection rule at trial, Wainwright v. Sykes , 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), and on appeal, Reed , supra, is a federal rule involving federal review on federal habeas corpus. 1989While the "novelty" of an issue may constitute cause for the failure to raise that issue on appeal, the cause and prejudice test for excusing compliance with a State's contemporaneous-objection rule at trial, Wainwright v. Sykes , 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), and on appeal, Reed , supra, is a federal rule involving federal review on federal habeas corpus.	2	4
Ex Parte Kennedygreen ala · 1985 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2010	2	3
Johnson v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1992 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2007–2013	2	2
Eatmon v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2011	2	2
Ex Parte Williamsgreen ala · 1997 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1999–2003	2	2
Kuenzel v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1990 · cited in 7 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2010 2 sentences 2010Further, “ ‘[t]his court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of its suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly harmful.’ ” Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474, 489 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) (quoting Johnson v. Wainwright, 778 F.2d 623 , 629 n. 6 (11th Cir.1985)). 2000See Burgess v. State , 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998); Kuenzel v. State , 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991). "`[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Burton v. State , 651 So.2d 641 , 645 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995), quoting United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1	1	7
Ex Parte Burgessgreen ala · 1998 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2013	1	3
Ex Parte Martingreen ala · 2004 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2016	1	2
Price v. State.green ala · 1998 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2008–2013	1	2
Thomas v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2004	1	2
United States v. Joe B. Butler, David R. Holmes, Donnie Waitesgreen ca11 · 1986 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	2
Ex Parte State, 1041313 (Ala. 10-6-2006)green ala · 2006 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016	1	1
Revis v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010	1	1
Irvin v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
Pace v. Stategreen ala · 1997 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (44)

Case	Cited	Years
Ex Parte Burton green ala · 1994 2 sentences 2011This Court has recognized that the “ ‘plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be “used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” ’ ” Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982).’ “ ‘Eggers v. State, 914 So.2d 883, 890-91 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).’ ” Eatmon v. State, 992 So.2d 64, 69 2010This Court has recognized that ‘“[t]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ ” ’ Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982).” Brooks v. State, 973 So.2d 380, 387 (Ala.Crim.App.2007).	49	1998–2014
Maes v. Thomas green scotus · 1995 2 sentences 2005P., provides: "`In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.' "This court has recognized that `"the plain error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise res 2003This Court has recognized that "`the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995), quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 , 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982).	35	1998–2014
Scott v. Kernan green scotus · 1995 2 sentences 2003This Court has recognized that "`the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995), quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 , 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982). 2003This Court has recognized that "`the plain error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995), quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), quoting, in turn, United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 , 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982).	31	1998–2014
United States v. William Timothy Chaney, A/K/A \James Kirk green · 1981 2 sentences 2007Because the contemporaneous objection rule is essential to the integrity and efficiency of our judicial process, we have stressed that `the plain error test is difficult to meet.' United States v. King, 73 F.3d 1564, 1572 (11th Cir.1996); accord, e.g., United States v. Sorondo, 845 F.2d at 948-49 ; United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148 , 1152 n. 4 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)." "` United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998). "`"While the plain error doctrine lessens the blow of a rigid application of the contemporaneous objection requirement, it is to be used sparingly, since the un 2007Because the contemporaneous objection rule is essential to the integrity and efficiency of our judicial process, we have stressed that `the plain error test is difficult to meet.' United States v. King, 73 F.3d 1564, 1572 (11th Cir.1996); accord, e.g., United States v. Sorondo, 845 F.2d at 948-49 ; United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148 , 1152 n. 4 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)." "` United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998). "`"While the plain error doctrine lessens the blow of a rigid application of the contemporaneous objection requirement, it is to be used sparingly, since the un	8	1996–2007
Ex Parte Kuenzel green ala · 1991 2 sentences 2007This Court may take appropriate action when the error ‘has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights of the appellant.’ Rule 45A, Ala. R.App.P. ‘[A] failure to object at trial, while not precluding our review, will weigh against any claim of prejudice.’ Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d at 657 (citing Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala. Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991)).” Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724, 727 (Ala.2002)(emphasis added). 2000See Burgess v. State , 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998); Kuenzel v. State , 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 242 , 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991). "`[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Burton v. State , 651 So.2d 641 , 645 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995), quoting United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1	6	2000–2007
Ex Parte Hall green ala · 2001 2 sentences 2014"The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal." Hall v. State , 820 So.2d 113 , 121 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala.2001). 2007App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d 679, 701 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), rev'd on other grounds, 620 So.2d 709 (Ala.1993), on remand, 620 So.2d 714 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 905 , 114 S.Ct. 285 , 126 L.Ed.2d 235 (1993).' " Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113, 121-22 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1080 , 122 S.Ct. 1966 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2002). "`"The narrowness of the plain error rule is a reflection of the importance, indeed necessity, of the c	4	2007–2014
United States v. Deborah A. Brown green ca2 · 2003 2 sentences 2013See generally, e.g., United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir. 1998) (‘The contemporaneous objection rule fosters finality of judgment and deters-“sandbagging” saving an issue for appeal in hope of having another shot at trial if the first one misses.’); United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654 , 666 n. 12 (2d Cir.2003) (‘[W]e do not want to encourage lawyers to “test [their] fortunes with the first jury,” while knowing there will be a “second round in the évent of a ■conviction.” 'McCrory [o. 2013See generally, e.g., United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 709 (11th Cir.1998) (‘The contemporaneous objection rule fosters finality of judgment and deters “sandbagging” saving an issue for appeal in hope of having another shot at trial if the first one misses.’); United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654 , 666 n. 12 (2d Cir.2003) (‘[W]e do not want to encourage lawyers to “test [their] fortunes with the first jury,” while knowing there will be a “second round in the event of a conviction.” McCrory [v. Henderson], 82 F.3d [1243,] at 1247 [(2d Cir.1996) ].’).	4	2010–2013
Ex Parte Womack green ala · 1983 2 sentences 2000By that review, as mentioned above, we notice plain error that "has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights of the [defendant]." Rule 39(k), Ala.R.App.P. "`"`Plain error'" arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.'" Ex parte Womack , 435 So.2d 766 , 769 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). `"In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which 1998Rules 39(k) and 45A, Ala. R.App.P. 1 "`"Plain error" arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings'" Ex parte Womack , 435 So.2d 766 , 769 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). "`In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Ex parte Land , 678 So.2d 224 , 232 (Ala. 1996), quoting United States v. Young , 470	4	1996–2000
Salser v. United States green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2000By that review, as mentioned above, we notice plain error that "has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights of the [defendant]." Rule 39(k), Ala.R.App.P. "`"`Plain error'" arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.'" Ex parte Womack , 435 So.2d 766 , 769 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). `"In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which 1998Rules 39(k) and 45A, Ala. R.App.P. 1 "`"Plain error" arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings'" Ex parte Womack , 435 So.2d 766 , 769 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). "`In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Ex parte Land , 678 So.2d 224 , 232 (Ala. 1996), quoting United States v. Young , 470	4	1996–2000
Dick v. Kemp green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2000By that review, as mentioned above, we notice plain error that "has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights of the [defendant]." Rule 39(k), Ala.R.App.P. "`"`Plain error'" arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.'" Ex parte Womack , 435 So.2d 766 , 769 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). `"In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which 1998Rules 39(k) and 45A, Ala. R.App.P. 1 "`"Plain error" arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings'" Ex parte Womack , 435 So.2d 766 , 769 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). "`In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Ex parte Land , 678 So.2d 224 , 232 (Ala. 1996), quoting United States v. Young , 470	4	1996–2000
Hydroculture, Inc. v. Coopers green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2000By that review, as mentioned above, we notice plain error that "has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights of the [defendant]." Rule 39(k), Ala.R.App.P. "`"`Plain error'" arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.'" Ex parte Womack , 435 So.2d 766 , 769 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). `"In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which 1998Rules 39(k) and 45A, Ala. R.App.P. 1 "`"Plain error" arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings'" Ex parte Womack , 435 So.2d 766 , 769 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). "`In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."'" Ex parte Land , 678 So.2d 224 , 232 (Ala. 1996), quoting United States v. Young , 470	4	1996–2000
Larry Romine v. Frederick J. Head green ca11 · 2001	2	2015–2015
Land v. Allen green ca11 · 2009	2	2015–2015
Whitehead v. State green alacrimapp · 1999	2	2011–2014
Johnson v. State green alacrimapp · 1993	2	2007–2013
Ex Parte Johnson green ala · 1993	2	2007–2013
Walker v. Cockrell green scotus · 2002	2	2007–2010
Green v. Georgia green scotus · 2002	2	2007–2010
Shabazz v. California green scotus · 2002	2	2007–2010
Jackson v. State green alacrimapp · 2000	2	2000–2001
Bradley v. Puckett green scotus · 1991	2	2000–2000
Spartan Mills v. Bank of America Illinois green scotus · 1997	2	1999–1999
Bush v. Alabama green scotus · 1997	2	1999–1999
Ex Parte Bush green ala · 1997	2	1999–1999
Clissuras v. City of New York green scotus · 1986	2	1998–1998
Ex Parte Haney green ala · 1992	2	1996–1996
Haney v. State green alacrimapp · 1991	2	1996–1996
Anderson v. United States green scotus · 1993	2	1996–1996
Jones v. Continental Bondware green scotus · 1993	2	1996–1996
United States v. Dominguez Benitez green scotus · 2004	1	2017–2017
Puckett v. United States green scotus · 2009	1	2017–2017
Burgess v. State green alacrimapp · 1997	1	2013–2013
Charlie Benson Bowen v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center green ca11 · 1985	1	2010–2010
American Future Systems, Inc. v. BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA green scotus · 2007	1	2010–2010
Campbell v. City of Union Point green scotus · 1999	1	2007–2007
Copley v. Sammons green scotus · 1999	1	2007–2007
Reed v. United States green scotus · 1999	1	2007–2007
Alabama v. Johnson green scotus · 1993	1	2007–2007
Appell v. Reno, Attorney General of the United States green scotus · 1993	1	2007–2007
Texas v. De Freece green scotus · 1993	1	2007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-40 (138) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-49 (117) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 (111) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-51 (95) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-47 (92) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-45 (88) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-52 (68) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-50 (46) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-46 (45) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-6-2 (40) AL § Ala. Code § 12-3-16 (24) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-1-9 (19)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

LA 515 (1978–2026) FL 314 (1978–2026) VA 294 (1982–2026) TX 181 (1978–2025) AL 177 (1987–2026) KS 154 (1965–2026) IN 124 (1976–2026) MS 105 (1967–2026) AR 99 (1992–2026) GA 46 (1978–2026) CO 32 (1967–2025) WV 21 (1986–2025) MD 20 (1999–2025) OH 19 (1991–2026) ID 19 (2010–2025) CA 18 (1983–2026) KY 16 (1977–2026) NH 16 (1979–2023) IL 15 (1966–2025) PA 14 (1967–2019) NV 12 (1978–2026) MT 10 (1998–2026) DC 10 (1986–2025) MO 10 (1975–2018) NE 8 (2006–2026) AK 6 (1968–2018) TN 6 (1978–2021) MA 5 (1982–2023) SC 5 (1991–2008) AZ 5 (1974–2009) RI 5 (1965–1999) UT 4 (1985–2017) MI 4 (1994–2015) CT 4 (2002–2019) WI 4 (1978–2002) NY 3 (1989–2009) MN 3 (2006–2015) WA 2 (2012–2016) IA 2 (1978–2022) ME 2 (1979–2015) NC 2 (1968–2015) NM 2 (2013–2013) DE 2 (1980–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check