general exclusionary rule in Alabama

2002The generally recognized exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted are as follows: "`(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

2000The generally recognized exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted are as follows: "`(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

2012When discussing this exception to the general exclusionary rule, the Alabama Supreme Court has stated: “Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of a collateral act by the defendant is not admissible to prove the bad character of the defendant. '* “Evidence of prior [or subsequent] bad acts of a criminal defendant is presumptively prejudicial to the defendant.” ’ Bolden v. State, 595 So.2d 911, 913 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, 595 So.2d 914 (Ala.1992) (quoting Ex parte Cofer, 440 So.2d 1121, 1124 (Ala.1983)).

2010Cofer v. State, 440 So.2d 1121, 1124 (Ala.1983) (`[e]vidence of prior bad acts of a criminal defendant is presumptively prejudicial to the defendant'). `The general exclusionary rule bars the state from introducing evidence of an accused's prior criminal acts for the sole purpose of proving the propensity of the accused to commit the charged offense.' Hobbs v. State, 669 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Ala.Crim.App.1995).

2026This 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 12 CR-2024-0581 question." ' Pope v. State, 365 So. 2d 369, 371 (Ala. [Crim.] App. 1978), quoting C.

2024This 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.

2013In other words, “ ‘[ejvidence of a prior crime is admissible only when .the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and those surrounding the presently charged crime “exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person.” ’ ” Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Ex parte Arthur, 472 So,2d 665, 668 (Ala.1985), quoting in turn Brewer v. State, 440 So.2d 1155, 1161 (Ala.Crim.App.1983)). “‘Under the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule prohibiting the admissio

2013Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 69.01(8) (5th ed.1996); Ex parte Arthur, 472 So.2d 665 (Ala.1985); Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 861 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Tyson v. State, 784 So.2d 328, 344 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 784 So.2d 357 (Ala.2000). ‘Under the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule prohibiting the admission of other or collateral crimes as substantive evidence of the guilt of the accused, the prior crime is not relevant to prove identity unless both that and the now-charged crime are “signature crimes” having the accused’s mark and the peculiarly distinctive .modus o

2013In other words, “ ‘[ejvidence of a prior crime is admissible only when .the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and those surrounding the presently charged crime “exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person.” ’ ” Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Ex parte Arthur, 472 So,2d 665, 668 (Ala.1985), quoting in turn Brewer v. State, 440 So.2d 1155, 1161 (Ala.Crim.App.1983)). “‘Under the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule prohibiting the admissio

2013Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 69.01(8) (5th ed.1996); Ex parte Arthur, 472 So.2d 665 (Ala.1985); Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 861 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Tyson v. State, 784 So.2d 328, 344 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 784 So.2d 357 (Ala.2000). ‘Under the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule prohibiting the admission of other or collateral crimes as substantive evidence of the guilt of the accused, the prior crime is not relevant to prove identity unless both that and the now-charged crime are “signature crimes” having the accused’s mark and the peculiarly distinctive .modus o

2024"The general exclusionary rule bars the state from introducing evidence of an accused's prior criminal acts for the sole purpose of proving the propensity of the accused to commit the charged offense." Hobbs v. State, 669 So. 2d 1030, 1032 (Ala. Crim.

2010Cofer v. State, 440 So.2d 1121, 1124 (Ala.1983) (`[e]vidence of prior bad acts of a criminal defendant is presumptively prejudicial to the defendant'). `The general exclusionary rule bars the state from introducing evidence of an accused's prior criminal acts for the sole purpose of proving the propensity of the accused to commit the charged offense.' Hobbs v. State, 669 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Ala.Crim.App.1995).

2013See also Mason v. State, 259 Ala. 438 , 66 So.2d 557 (1953); and Govan v. State, 40 Ala.App. 482 , 115 So.2d 667 (1959) (recognizing that the identity exception is applicable only where both the prior crime and the charged offense were committed in the same special or peculiar manner).

2013See also Mason v. State, 259 Ala. 438 , 66 So.2d 557 (1953); and Govan v. State, 40 Ala.App. 482 , 115 So.2d 667 (1959) (recognizing that the identity exception is applicable only where both the prior crime and the charged offense were committed in the same special or peculiar manner).

2012In Anonymous v. State, 507 So.2d 972, 975 (Ala.1987), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed this Court’s judgment and held that, under the facts of that case, the evidence of other collateral acts was inadmissible under the “identity” and “intent” exceptions to the general exclusionary rule.

1993In Anonymous , the Alabama Supreme Court held that the identity of the person who committed the acts must be a "real and open issue" to admit evidence of a collateral sexual offense under the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule. 507 So.2d at 975 .

2026However, in this case, the alleged prior bad act was offered to prove motive. " ' " 'Motive is defined as "an inducement, or that which leads or tempts the mind to do or commit the crime charged." Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9, 11 , 65 So. 972, 977 (1914).

2026However, in this case, the alleged prior bad act was offered to prove motive. " ' " 'Motive is defined as "an inducement, or that which leads or tempts the mind to do or commit the crime charged." Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9, 11 , 65 So. 972, 977 (1914).

2013Evid.: “ ‘ “These exceptions fall under the following general divisions: (1) Relevancy as part of res gestae. (2) Relevancy to prove identity of person or of crime. (3) Relevancy to prove scien-ter, or guilty knowledge. (4) Relevancy to prove intent. (5) Relevancy to show motive. (6) Relevancy to prove system. (7) Relevancy to prove malice. (8) Relevancy to rebut special defenses. (9) Relevancy in various particular crimes.” ’ “Scott v. State, 353 So.2d 36, 38 (Ala.Crim.App.1977), quoting Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, § 31.

2013Evid.: “ ‘ “These exceptions fall under the following general divisions: (1) Relevancy as part of res gestae. (2) Relevancy to prove identity of person or of crime. (3) Relevancy to prove scienter, or guilty knowledge. (4) Relevancy to prove intent. (5) Relevancy to show motive. (6) Relevancy to prove system. (7) Relevancy to prove malice. (8) Relevancy to rebut special defenses. (9) Relevancy in various particular crimes.” ’ “Scott v. State, 353 So.2d 36, 38 (Ala.Crim.App.1977), quoting Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, § 31.

2013Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 69.01(8) (5th ed.1996); Ex parte Arthur, 472 So.2d 665 (Ala.1985); Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 861 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Tyson v. State, 784 So.2d 328, 344 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 784 So.2d 357 (Ala.2000). ‘Under the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule prohibiting the admission of other or collateral crimes as substantive evidence of the guilt of the accused, the prior crime is not relevant to prove identity unless both that and the now-charged crime are “signature crimes” having the accused’s mark and the peculiarly distinctive .modus o

2011App.2000); Tyson v. State, 784 So.2d 328, 344 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 784 So.2d 357 (Ala.2000). `Under the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule prohibiting the admission of other or collateral crimes as substantive evidence of the guilt of the accused, the prior crime is not relevant to prove identity unless both that and the now-charged crime are "signature crimes" having the accused's mark and the peculiarly distinctive modus operandi so that they may be said to be the work of the same person.' Bighames v. State, 440 So.2d 1231, 1233 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). `[E]vidence of a prio

2010In Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018 (Ala.Cr.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), this court discussed the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule: “ ‘Numerous Alabama cases list the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted.

2007In Nicks v. State , 521 So.2d 1018 (Ala.Cr.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), this court discussed the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule: "`Numerous Alabama cases list the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted.

2010In Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018 (Ala.Cr.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), this court discussed the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule: “ ‘Numerous Alabama cases list the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted.

2007In Nicks v. State , 521 So.2d 1018 (Ala.Cr.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), this court discussed the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule: "`Numerous Alabama cases list the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted.

2010In Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018 (Ala.Cr.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), this court discussed the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule: “ ‘Numerous Alabama cases list the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted.

2007In Nicks v. State , 521 So.2d 1018 (Ala.Cr.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), this court discussed the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule: "`Numerous Alabama cases list the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted.

2007It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident ....” In Robinson v. State, 528 So.2d 343 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), this Court explained the purpose behind the general exclusionary rule. “ ‘ “ ‘On the trial of a person for the alleged commission of a particular crime, evidence of his doing another act, which itself is a crime, is not admissible if the only probative function of such evidence is to show his *907 bad character, inclination or propensity to commit the type of crim

2006What is meant here is an undue tendency to move the tribunal to decide on an improper basis, commonly, though not always, an emotional one."'" Averette v. State , supra, at 1374.' " 528 So.2d at 347 ." In this case, the admission of evidence of Hurley's prior rape conviction violated the general exclusionary rule of Rule 404 (b).

2026Specifically, he argues that because 12 hours had elapsed between the two murders, the act could not be part of one "common plan or scheme." We disagree. " 'In Ex parte Windsor, 683 So. 2d 1042, 1053 (Ala. 1996), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: " ' "The robbery and murder of Rayford Howard and the robbery and murder of Randall Earl Pepper occurred only hours apart, on the same day.

2013Specifically, he argues that because 12 hours had elapsed between the two murders, the act could not be part of one “common plan or scheme.” We disagree. “ ‘In Ex parte Windsor, 683 So.2d 1042, 1053 (Ala.1996), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “ ‘ “The robbery and murder of Rayford Howard and the robbery and murder of Randall Earl Pepper occurred only hours apart, on the same day.

2016Schwab, ‘Of Gangs and - Guilt,’ 3 Los Angeles Lawyer 13 (1990) (evidence of organizational membership a? proof of crime). ‘[E]ven if the proffered evidence [of pri- or bad acts] fits within an exception to .the general exclusionary rule, its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect for the evidence to be admissible.’ Ex parte Smith, 581 So.2d 531, 535 (Ala.1991).” Thomas v. State, 625 So.2d 1149, 1153 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), rev’d on other grounds, Ex parte Thomas, 625 So.2d 1156, 1156 (Ala.1993).

1994As the Alabama Supreme Court stated in Ex parte Smith, 581 So.2d 531, 535 (Ala.1991): “In Robinson v. State, 528 So.2d 343 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), the Court of Criminal Appeals explained that even if the proffered evidence fits within an exception to the general exclusionary rule, its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect for the evidence to be admissible: ‘“However, the fact that evidence of a prior bad act may fit into one of these exceptions will not alone justify its admission. “ ‘Judicial inquiry does not end with a determination that the evidence of another crime is relevant an

2012Second, Scott argues that the pri- or fires were not admissible under the common-plan or identity exception to the general exclusionary rule. “[T]he common plan, scheme, or design exception is ‘essentially coextensive with the identity exception,’ Ex parte Dar by, 516 So.2d 786, 789 (Ala.1987), and ‘applies only when identity is actually at issue.’ ” Lewis v. State, 889 So.2d 623, 661 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).

2003In fact, the Alabama Supreme Court has stated that the common plan, design, or scheme exception to the general exclusionary rule is `essentially co-extensive *583 with the identity exception.' Ex parte Darby, 516 So.2d 786, 789 (Ala.1987).

2013Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 69.01(8) (5th ed.1996); Ex parte Arthur, 472 So.2d 665 (Ala.1985); Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 861 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Tyson v. State, 784 So.2d 328, 344 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 784 So.2d 357 (Ala.2000). ‘Under the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule prohibiting the admission of other or collateral crimes as substantive evidence of the guilt of the accused, the prior crime is not relevant to prove identity unless both that and the now-charged crime are “signature crimes” having the accused’s mark and the peculiarly distinctive .modus o

2013Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 69.01(8) (5th ed.1996); Ex parte Arthur, 472 So.2d 665 (Ala.1985); Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 861 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Tyson v. State, 784 So.2d 328, 344 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 784 So.2d 357 (Ala.2000). ‘Under the identity exception to the general exclusionary rule prohibiting the admission of other or collateral crimes as substantive evidence of the guilt of the accused, the prior crime is not relevant to prove identity unless both that and the now-charged crime are “signature crimes” having the accused’s mark and the peculiarly distinctive .modus o

2002The generally recognized exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted are as follows: "`(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

2000The generally recognized exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, or tests for relevancy, whereby evidence of collateral crimes or acts may be admitted are as follows: "`(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