application of the general rule in Alabama

2006Action in said cause should be suspended in the trial court until the appeal is effectively abandoned, dismissed, or decided.’ Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 409 , 98 So. 685 (1923); Ex parte Pugh, 441 So.2d 126, 127 (Ala.1983). ‘The basic principle is that a case should not be pending in a lower and an appellate court at the same time.’ Walker v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 292 Ala. 548, 552 , 297 So.2d 370 (1974).

2006Action in said cause should be suspended in the trial court until the appeal is effectively abandoned, dismissed, or decided.’ Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 409 , 98 So. 685 (1923); Ex parte Pugh, 441 So.2d 126, 127 (Ala.1983). ‘The basic principle is that a case should not be pending in a lower and an appellate court at the same time.’ Walker v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 292 Ala. 548, 552 , 297 So.2d 370 (1974).

1995Funderberg v. State , 100 Ala. 36 , 14 So. 877 (1893).' " Smith v. State , 581 So.2d 497 , 524-525 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 581 So.2d 531 (Ala.), on remand, 581 So.2d 536 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), quoting Fisher v. State , 439 So.2d 176 , 177 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).

1990Funderberg v. State, 100 Ala. 36 , 14 So. 877 (1893)." Fisher, 439 So.2d at 177 .

2006Action in said cause should be suspended in the trial court until the appeal is effectively abandoned, dismissed, or decided.’ Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 409 , 98 So. 685 (1923); Ex parte Pugh, 441 So.2d 126, 127 (Ala.1983). ‘The basic principle is that a case should not be pending in a lower and an appellate court at the same time.’ Walker v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 292 Ala. 548, 552 , 297 So.2d 370 (1974).

1998Action in said cause should be suspended in the trial court until the appeal is effectively abandoned, dismissed, or decided.' Lewis v. Martin , 210 Ala. 401 , 409 , 98 So. 635 (1923); Ex parte Pugh , 441 So.2d 126 , 127 (Ala. 1983). 'The basic principle is that a case should not be pending in a lower and an appellate court at the same time.' Walker v. Alabama Public Service Commission , 292 Ala. 548 , 552 , 297 So.2d 370 (1974). ". . . .

1995Funderberg v. State , 100 Ala. 36 , 14 So. 877 (1893).' " Smith v. State , 581 So.2d 497 , 524-525 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 581 So.2d 531 (Ala.), on remand, 581 So.2d 536 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), quoting Fisher v. State , 439 So.2d 176 , 177 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).

1990Funderberg v. State, 100 Ala. 36 , 14 So. 877 (1893)." Fisher, 439 So.2d at 177 .

2006Action in said cause should be suspended in the trial court until the appeal is effectively abandoned, dismissed, or decided.’ Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 409 , 98 So. 685 (1923); Ex parte Pugh, 441 So.2d 126, 127 (Ala.1983). ‘The basic principle is that a case should not be pending in a lower and an appellate court at the same time.’ Walker v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 292 Ala. 548, 552 , 297 So.2d 370 (1974).

2006See, e.g., McKinney v. State, 549 So.2d 166 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); Reeves v. State, 419 So.2d 217 (Ala.1982); Osborn v. Riley, 331 So.2d 268 (Ala.1976); Reynolds v. Colonial Bank, 874 So.2d 497 (Ala.2003).

2006See, e.g., McKinney v. State, 549 So.2d 166 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); Reeves v. State, 419 So.2d 217 (Ala.1982); Osborn v. Riley, 331 So.2d 268 (Ala.1976); Reynolds v. Colonial Bank, 874 So.2d 497 (Ala.2003).

2006See, e.g., McKinney v. State, 549 So.2d 166 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); Reeves v. State, 419 So.2d 217 (Ala.1982); Osborn v. Riley, 331 So.2d 268 (Ala.1976); Reynolds v. Colonial Bank, 874 So.2d 497 (Ala.2003).

1998Action in said cause should be suspended in the trial court until the appeal is effectively abandoned, dismissed, or decided.' Lewis v. Martin , 210 Ala. 401 , 409 , 98 So. 635 (1923); Ex parte Pugh , 441 So.2d 126 , 127 (Ala. 1983). 'The basic principle is that a case should not be pending in a lower and an appellate court at the same time.' Walker v. Alabama Public Service Commission , 292 Ala. 548 , 552 , 297 So.2d 370 (1974). ". . . .

1995Funderberg v. State , 100 Ala. 36 , 14 So. 877 (1893).' " Smith v. State , 581 So.2d 497 , 524-525 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 581 So.2d 531 (Ala.), on remand, 581 So.2d 536 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), quoting Fisher v. State , 439 So.2d 176 , 177 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).

1995Funderberg v. State , 100 Ala. 36 , 14 So. 877 (1893).' " Smith v. State , 581 So.2d 497 , 524-525 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 581 So.2d 531 (Ala.), on remand, 581 So.2d 536 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), quoting Fisher v. State , 439 So.2d 176 , 177 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).

1995Funderberg v. State , 100 Ala. 36 , 14 So. 877 (1893).' " Smith v. State , 581 So.2d 497 , 524-525 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 581 So.2d 531 (Ala.), on remand, 581 So.2d 536 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), quoting Fisher v. State , 439 So.2d 176 , 177 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).

1989Ex parte Frith , 526 So.2d 880 , 882 (Ala. 1987).

1985Decatur Car Wheel & Manufacturing Co. v. Mehaffey, Adm'x, 128 Ala. 242 , 29 So. 646 [(1901)].

1985"However, a properly qualified expert may state his opinion as to the nature, cause, and effect of a wound or injury, Thomas v. State, 249 Ala. 358, 360 , 31 So.2d 71 (1947)...." Our Supreme Court in Colvin v. State, 22 So.2d 548 at 549 (1945), expressed the circumscription of the application of the general rule to the testimony of an expert, as follows: "If [the expert's] ... testimony constituted an opinion on a matter of common knowledge, then it was inadmissible.

1985"However, a properly qualified expert may state his opinion as to the nature, cause, and effect of a wound or injury, Thomas v. State, 249 Ala. 358, 360 , 31 So.2d 71 (1947)...." Our Supreme Court in Colvin v. State, 22 So.2d 548 at 549 (1945), expressed the circumscription of the application of the general rule to the testimony of an expert, as follows: "If [the expert's] ... testimony constituted an opinion on a matter of common knowledge, then it was inadmissible.

1980In reaching that decision this Court recognized the absence of any "universal formula for determining in all cases the power which must be exercised by the legislative body itself, each case" being "controlled by the application of the general principle to a given situation." Ibid. at 30 Ala. App. 204 , 4 So.2d 5 .

1980In reaching that decision this Court recognized the absence of any "universal formula for determining in all cases the power which must be exercised by the legislative body itself, each case" being "controlled by the application of the general principle to a given situation." Ibid. at 30 Ala. App. 204 , 4 So.2d 5 .

1980In reaching that decision this Court recognized the absence of any "universal formula for determining in all cases the power which must be exercised by the legislative body itself, each case" being "controlled by the application of the general principle to a given situation." Ibid. at 30 Ala. App. 204 , 4 So.2d 5 .

1976In Parsons v. State , 251 Ala. 467 , 477 , 38 So.2d 209 , it was stated: *Page 1053 "But the rule is that if several crimes in fact constitute one criminal transaction, evidence of all such crimes may be given as part of the res gestae of the offense with which defendant is charged. — Allison v. State , 1 Ala. App. 206 , 55 So. 453 ; Askew v. State , 6 Ala. App. 41 , 60 So. 455 ; Ingram v. State , 39 Ala. 247 , 84 Am.Dec. 782." Judge McElroy, citing numerous supporting authorities, has the following to say on the subject: "Evidence of accused's commission of another crime is admissible if such

1976In Parsons v. State , 251 Ala. 467 , 477 , 38 So.2d 209 , it was stated: *Page 1053 "But the rule is that if several crimes in fact constitute one criminal transaction, evidence of all such crimes may be given as part of the res gestae of the offense with which defendant is charged. — Allison v. State , 1 Ala. App. 206 , 55 So. 453 ; Askew v. State , 6 Ala. App. 41 , 60 So. 455 ; Ingram v. State , 39 Ala. 247 , 84 Am.Dec. 782." Judge McElroy, citing numerous supporting authorities, has the following to say on the subject: "Evidence of accused's commission of another crime is admissible if such

1976In Parsons v. State , 251 Ala. 467 , 477 , 38 So.2d 209 , it was stated: *Page 1053 "But the rule is that if several crimes in fact constitute one criminal transaction, evidence of all such crimes may be given as part of the res gestae of the offense with which defendant is charged. — Allison v. State , 1 Ala. App. 206 , 55 So. 453 ; Askew v. State , 6 Ala. App. 41 , 60 So. 455 ; Ingram v. State , 39 Ala. 247 , 84 Am.Dec. 782." Judge McElroy, citing numerous supporting authorities, has the following to say on the subject: "Evidence of accused's commission of another crime is admissible if such

1976In Parsons v. State , 251 Ala. 467 , 477 , 38 So.2d 209 , it was stated: *Page 1053 "But the rule is that if several crimes in fact constitute one criminal transaction, evidence of all such crimes may be given as part of the res gestae of the offense with which defendant is charged. — Allison v. State , 1 Ala. App. 206 , 55 So. 453 ; Askew v. State , 6 Ala. App. 41 , 60 So. 455 ; Ingram v. State , 39 Ala. 247 , 84 Am.Dec. 782." Judge McElroy, citing numerous supporting authorities, has the following to say on the subject: "Evidence of accused's commission of another crime is admissible if such

1976In Parsons v. State , 251 Ala. 467 , 477 , 38 So.2d 209 , it was stated: *Page 1053 "But the rule is that if several crimes in fact constitute one criminal transaction, evidence of all such crimes may be given as part of the res gestae of the offense with which defendant is charged. — Allison v. State , 1 Ala. App. 206 , 55 So. 453 ; Askew v. State , 6 Ala. App. 41 , 60 So. 455 ; Ingram v. State , 39 Ala. 247 , 84 Am.Dec. 782." Judge McElroy, citing numerous supporting authorities, has the following to say on the subject: "Evidence of accused's commission of another crime is admissible if such

1976NOTES [1] By prospective application, we mean that this rule will apply to offenses coming within the exception occurring after the effective date of this opinion. [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . [3] Whether this first statement would support a perjury conviction under Tit. 14, § 377 (". . . upon any oath or affirmation authorized by law. . ."), is not before us and we express no opinion on this issue. [4] This statement of the law—applied in the instant case—must be understood as an expression of the general rule and not the exception to that rule as di

1976NOTES [1] By prospective application, we mean that this rule will apply to offenses coming within the exception occurring after the effective date of this opinion. [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . [3] Whether this first statement would support a perjury conviction under Tit. 14, § 377 (". . . upon any oath or affirmation authorized by law. . ."), is not before us and we express no opinion on this issue. [4] This statement of the law—applied in the instant case—must be understood as an expression of the general rule and not the exception to that rule as di

1976In Parsons v. State , 251 Ala. 467 , 477 , 38 So.2d 209 , it was stated: *Page 1053 "But the rule is that if several crimes in fact constitute one criminal transaction, evidence of all such crimes may be given as part of the res gestae of the offense with which defendant is charged. — Allison v. State , 1 Ala. App. 206 , 55 So. 453 ; Askew v. State , 6 Ala. App. 41 , 60 So. 455 ; Ingram v. State , 39 Ala. 247 , 84 Am.Dec. 782." Judge McElroy, citing numerous supporting authorities, has the following to say on the subject: "Evidence of accused's commission of another crime is admissible if such

1976In Parsons v. State , 251 Ala. 467 , 477 , 38 So.2d 209 , it was stated: *Page 1053 "But the rule is that if several crimes in fact constitute one criminal transaction, evidence of all such crimes may be given as part of the res gestae of the offense with which defendant is charged. — Allison v. State , 1 Ala. App. 206 , 55 So. 453 ; Askew v. State , 6 Ala. App. 41 , 60 So. 455 ; Ingram v. State , 39 Ala. 247 , 84 Am.Dec. 782." Judge McElroy, citing numerous supporting authorities, has the following to say on the subject: "Evidence of accused's commission of another crime is admissible if such

1958Although this exclusion occurred on the morning following the testimony, a circumstance which might, if there were prejudicial matter, leave ineradicable harm (e. g., Poland v. State, 25 Ala.App. 213 , 143 So. 209 — testimony of paternity lingered overnight on jury’s consciousness before exclusion), nevertheless here the action by the court in striking the evidence was a lagniappe to the defendant because the record here shows the witness had answered the question before there was objection.

1958Although this exclusion occurred on the morning following the testimony, a circumstance which might, if there were prejudicial matter, leave ineradicable harm (e. g., Poland v. State, 25 Ala.App. 213 , 143 So. 209 — testimony of paternity lingered overnight on jury’s consciousness before exclusion), nevertheless here the action by the court in striking the evidence was a lagniappe to the defendant because the record here shows the witness had answered the question before there was objection.