propriety instruction in Alabama

22 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1854–2016 0 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 (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Snyder v. Stategreen ala · 2001 · cited in 9 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2003–2014 2 sentences 2014Snyder v. State, 893 So.2d 482, 485 (Ala.2001) (explaining that ‘each inquiry regarding the propriety of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior convictions ... must be determined on a case-by-case basis’); Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759, 768 (Ala.2004) (same); Johnson v. State, 120 So.3d 1119, 1128 (Ala.2006) (same). [[Image here]] “Although evidence of R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts was properly admitted as substantive evidence to show his motive and although the circuit court correctly prohibited the jury from considering R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts as evidence of his bad character, t 2014Snyder v. State, 893 So.2d 482, 485 (Ala.2001) (explaining that ‘each inquiry regarding the propriety of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior convictions ... must be determined on a case-by-case basis’); Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759, 768 (Ala.2004) (same); Johnson v. State, 120 So.3d 1119, 1126 (Ala.2006) (same). [[Image here]] “Although evidence of R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts was properly admitted as substantive evidence to show his motive and although the circuit court correctly prohibited the jury from considering R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts as evidence of his bad character, t	8	9
Ex Parte Martingreen ala · 2004 · cited in 6 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2006–2014 2 sentences 2014Snyder v. State, 893 So.2d 482, 485 (Ala.2001) (explaining that ‘each inquiry regarding the propriety of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior convictions ... must be determined on a case-by-case basis’); Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759, 768 (Ala.2004) (same); Johnson v. State, 120 So.3d 1119, 1128 (Ala.2006) (same). [[Image here]] “Although evidence of R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts was properly admitted as substantive evidence to show his motive and although the circuit court correctly prohibited the jury from considering R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts as evidence of his bad character, t 2014Snyder v. State, 893 So.2d 482, 485 (Ala.2001) (explaining that ‘each inquiry regarding the propriety of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior convictions ... must be determined on a case-by-case basis’); Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759, 768 (Ala.2004) (same); Johnson v. State, 120 So.3d 1119, 1126 (Ala.2006) (same). [[Image here]] “Although evidence of R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts was properly admitted as substantive evidence to show his motive and although the circuit court correctly prohibited the jury from considering R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts as evidence of his bad character, t	6	6
Ex Parte State, 1041313 (Ala. 10-6-2006)green ala · 2006 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2012–2014 2 sentences 2014Snyder v. State, 893 So.2d 482, 485 (Ala.2001) (explaining that ‘each inquiry regarding the propriety of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior convictions ... must be determined on a case-by-case basis’); Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759, 768 (Ala.2004) (same); Johnson v. State, 120 So.3d 1119, 1128 (Ala.2006) (same). [[Image here]] “Although evidence of R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts was properly admitted as substantive evidence to show his motive and although the circuit court correctly prohibited the jury from considering R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts as evidence of his bad character, t 2014Snyder v. State, 893 So.2d 482, 485 (Ala.2001) (explaining that ‘each inquiry regarding the propriety of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior convictions ... must be determined on a case-by-case basis’); Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759, 768 (Ala.2004) (same); Johnson v. State, 120 So.3d 1119, 1126 (Ala.2006) (same). [[Image here]] “Although evidence of R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts was properly admitted as substantive evidence to show his motive and although the circuit court correctly prohibited the jury from considering R.C.W.’s collateral bad acts as evidence of his bad character, t	3	3
Smith v. Paynegreen miss · 2002 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004In the instant case, we are not dealing with evidence of prior convictions and their corresponding "presumptively prejudicial nature." In any event, in Snyder v. State, 839 So.2d 482 , 485 (Ala. 2001), we limited the holding of Minor , stating, "each inquiry regarding the propriety of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior convictions presented for impeachment purposes must be determined on a case-by-case basis." Because there were no eyewitnesses to the incident in this case, the majority of the State's evidence at trial was necessarily circumstantial. 2004In the instant case, we are not dealing with evidence of prior convictions and their corresponding "presumptively prejudicial nature." In any event, in Snyder v. State, 839 So.2d 482, 485 (Ala.2001), we limited the holding of Minor , stating, "each inquiry regarding the propriety of an instruction on the use of evidence of prior convictions presented for impeachment purposes must be determined on a case-by-case basis." Because there were no eyewitnesses to the incident in this case, the majority of the State's evidence at trial was necessarily circumstantial.	1	1
William H. Tracy and John B. Balestier, in Error v. Samuel Swartwoutgreen · 1836 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993We are aware that the propriety of this doctrine has been questioned by some writers; but, if repeated judicial decisions for more than a century are to be received as the best exposition of what the law is, the question will not admit of argument.... [elipses in Barry ] In actions of trespass, where the injury has been wanton and malicious or gross and outrageous, courts permit juries to add to the measured compensation of the plaintiff, which he would have been entitled to recover had the injury been inflicted without design or intention, something further by way of punishment or example, wh 1993We are aware that the propriety of this doctrine has been questioned by some writers; but, if repeated judicial decisions for more than a century are to be received as the best exposition of what the law is, the question will not admit of argument.... [elipses in Barry ] In actions of trespass, where the injury has been wanton and malicious or gross and outrageous, courts permit juries to add to the measured compensation of the plaintiff, which he would have been entitled to recover had the injury been inflicted without design or intention, something further by way of punishment or example, wh	1	1
Philadelphia, Wilmington, & Baltimore Railroad v. Quigleygreen · 1859 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993In Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202, 214 [ 16 L.Ed. 73 ] [1859], Mr. Justice Campbell said: `Whenever the injury complained of has been inflicted maliciously or wantonly, and with circumstances of contumely or indignity, the jury are not limited to the ascertainment of a simple compensation for the wrong committed against the aggrieved person. 1993In Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202, 214 [ 16 L.Ed. 73 ] [1859], Mr. Justice Campbell said: `Whenever the injury complained of has been inflicted maliciously or wantonly, and with circumstances of contumely or indignity, the jury are not limited to the ascertainment of a simple compensation for the wrong committed against the aggrieved person.	1	1
Bruce E. Ellis v. Amos E. Reed, Secretary of Corrections, and the Attorney General of the State of North Carolinagreen ca4 · 1979 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 1 sentence 1987See Ellis v. Reed , 596 F.2d 1195 (4th Cir. 1978) (rule in Brasfield "is one of judicial administration based on the supervisory powers of the Supreme Court over the federal court system" and "is not applicable per se to the state courts.") The Showers court implicitly adopted a "totality of the circumstances" approach in determining the propriety of such an inquiry by the trial judge.	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 (24)

Case	Cited	Years
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 2016Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . 2016Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). .	1	2016–2016
Williamson v. State green alacrimapp · 1990 1 sentence 2015In Williamson v. State, 570 So.2d 722 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), reversed in part on other grounds, 584 So.2d 1289 (Ala.1991), the defendant requested a jury instruction on a lesser-included ■ offense in a discussion held prior to the oral charge.	1	2015–2015
Ex Parte Williamson neutral ala · 1991 1 sentence 2015In Williamson v. State, 570 So.2d 722 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), reversed in part on other grounds, 584 So.2d 1289 (Ala.1991), the defendant requested a jury instruction on a lesser-included ■ offense in a discussion held prior to the oral charge.	1	2015–2015
Bravos v. Green green dcd · 2004 2 sentences 2005The operation of Section 303(d) was succinctly summarized by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Bravos v. Green, 306 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004): "Nonpoint source pollution is primarily regulated by the States through the water-quality approach. 2005The operation of Section 303(d) was succinctly summarized by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Bravos v. Green , 306 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004): "Nonpoint source pollution is primarily regulated by the States through the water-quality approach.	1	2005–2005
Ex Parte Long green ala · 1992 2 sentences 2001Long , 600 So.2d at 985 . 2001Long, 600 So.2d at 985 .	1	2001–2001
Alabama Power Company v. Tatum green ala · 1975 2 sentences 1997Tatum , 293 Ala. at 504 , 306 So.2d at 254 . 1997Tatum , 293 Ala. at 504 , 306 So.2d at 254 .	1	1997–1997
The Amiable Nancy green scotus · 1818 2 sentences 1993We are aware that the propriety of this doctrine has been questioned by some writers; but, if repeated judicial decisions for more than a century are to be received as the best exposition of what the law is, the question will not admit of argument.... [elipses in Barry ] In actions of trespass, where the injury has been wanton and malicious or gross and outrageous, courts permit juries to add to the measured compensation of the plaintiff, which he would have been entitled to recover had the injury been inflicted without design or intention, something further by way of punishment or example, wh 1993We are aware that the propriety of this doctrine has been questioned by some writers; but, if repeated judicial decisions for more than a century are to be received as the best exposition of what the law is, the question will not admit of argument.... [elipses in Barry ] In actions of trespass, where the injury has been wanton and malicious or gross and outrageous, courts permit juries to add to the measured compensation of the plaintiff, which he would have been entitled to recover had the injury been inflicted without design or intention, something further by way of punishment or example, wh	1	1993–1993
Richards v. State green ala · 1976 1 sentence 1987In Patton v. City of Decatur , 337 So.2d 173 (Ala.Cr.App. 1975), the test operator was allowed to testify as to the propriety of the test he employed on the appellant; however, the case was reversed because the prosecution failed to proffer a duly certified and authenticated copy of the methods or regulations adopted and approved by the State Board of Health.	1	1987–1987
Patton v. City of Decatur green ala · 1976 1 sentence 1987Patton v. City of Decatur , 337 So.2d 321 (Ala. 1976).	1	1987–1987
Maund v. State green ala · 1950 2 sentences 1980JORDAN: Yes, sir." Maund v. State, 254 Ala. 452 , 48 So.2d 553 (1950), only applies to prosecuting attorneys testifying and does not refer to the propriety of a defense attorney testifying. 1980JORDAN: Yes, sir." Maund v. State, 254 Ala. 452 , 48 So.2d 553 (1950), only applies to prosecuting attorneys testifying and does not refer to the propriety of a defense attorney testifying.	1	1980–1980
Echols v. State green alactapp · 1950 1 sentence 1953“The propriety of this rule, permitting negative evidence of good character, is gradually forcing itself upon the recognition of the courts, and there is a current of modern authority rapidly forming in support of it.” In the fairly recent case of Echols v. State, Ala.App., 55 So.2d 522 1 , we held in effect that, if a witness gives positive testimony that the defendant’s character and reputation are good, it is error without injury to deny the right to introduce negative testimony in support of good character.	1	1953–1953
Thompson v. Tittle neutral ala · 1932 1 sentence 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Lindsey v. Brown neutral alactapp · 1922 1 sentence 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Rogers v. State green alactapp · 1928 1 sentence 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Morrow v. Town of Bear Creek neutral alactapp · 1931 1 sentence 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Dyess v. State neutral ala · 1932 1 sentence 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Porter v. State green · 1924 2 sentences 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 . 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Williams v. State neutral alactapp · 1947 2 sentences 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 . 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Wheat v. State neutral alactapp · 1922 1 sentence 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Puckett v. State neutral alactapp · 1931 1 sentence 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Stone v. State green ala · 1922 1 sentence 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Diamond v. State green · 1928 1 sentence 1947Dyess v. State, 224 Ala. 610 , 141 So. 662 ; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50 , S3 So. 706; Williams v. State, 32 Ala.App. 597 , 28 So.2d 731 ; Diamond v. State, 22 Ala.App. 410 , 116 So. 312 ; Puckett v. State, 24 Ala.App. 217 , 133 So. 63 ; Porter v. State, 20 Ala.App. 74 , 101 So. 97 ; Wheat v. State, 18 Ala.App. 554 , 93 So. 209 .	1	1947–1947
Bennett v. Hyde green conn · 1825 1 sentence 1854While in Case v. Marks, 20 Conn. 248 , the court, without expressly overruling Bennett v. Hyde, supra, doubts the propriety of the rule there laid down, and seriously questions the soundness of the reasoning on which it is founded.	1	1854–1854
Case v. Marks neutral conn · 1850	1	1854–1854

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-40 (8) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-1-9 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-45 (3)

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

CA 113 (1876–2026) MO 61 (1860–2015) IL 57 (1882–2025) TX 56 (1917–2026) NY 49 (1854–2018) IN 47 (1906–2026) PA 31 (1908–2025) FL 28 (1902–2025) NC 23 (1850–2025) MD 23 (1917–2021) CO 22 (1900–2024) MS 22 (1968–2009) AL 22 (1854–2016) IA 21 (1918–2022) OH 21 (1970–2026) MI 21 (1900–2021) UT 19 (1981–2020) NE 18 (1910–1998) WA 16 (1919–2025) CT 15 (1936–2010) WY 15 (1945–2024) KY 14 (1914–2016) NJ 14 (1884–2021) OR 14 (1898–2023) WV 13 (1882–2025) TN 12 (1934–2025) MA 11 (1961–2023) LA 10 (1981–1995) MN 10 (1932–2013) AZ 10 (1966–2015) KS 10 (1897–2016) NV 9 (1956–2014) SD 9 (1909–2025) VA 9 (1876–1997) MT 9 (1895–1987) RI 9 (1980–2026) ME 8 (1855–1981) AR 7 (1946–2010) OK 6 (1935–1995) GA 6 (1877–2023) NM 6 (1963–2018) DC 5 (1893–1996) HI 5 (1911–2005) DE 5 (1912–2008) VT 5 (1868–2006) NH 4 (1820–1995) ID 4 (1919–2022) AK 3 (1977–1990) WI 3 (1958–1973) ND 3 (1908–1993) SC 2 (1881–2014) VI 2 (1981–2005)

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

Your account

Appearance