ex post facto clause in Alabama

2025The Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged that, "historically, complaints alleging a violation of a municipal ordinance had to contain certain formalities such as alleging that the ordinance had been adopted before the commission of the offense to show that there had not been an ex post facto violation." Fearn, ___ So. 3d at ___ (citing Harris v. City of Vestavia Hills, 49 Ala. App. 171, 173-74 , 269 So. 2d 626, 627-28 (1972)).

2025The Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged that, "historically, complaints alleging a violation of a municipal ordinance had to contain certain formalities such as alleging that the ordinance had been adopted before the commission of the offense to show that there had not been an ex post facto violation." Fearn, ___ So. 3d at ___ (citing Harris v. City of Vestavia Hills, 49 Ala. App. 171, 173-74 , 269 So. 2d 626, 627-28 (1972)).

1988It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977), has changed its view of the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, and I assume that, by the majority decision today, this Court has changed its view of the ex post facto clause in the state constitution.

1988It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977), has changed its view of the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, and I assume that, by the majority decision today, this Court has changed its view of the ex post facto clause in the state constitution.

2024Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. " 'Id. at 390. " 'A change in the law does not run afoul of the ex post facto clause if it only affects a mode of procedure and does not alter "substantial personal rights." Huiett, 302 S.C. at 171 , 394 S.E.2d at 487 (quoting Miller, 482 U.S. at 430 , 107 S. Ct. 2446 ).

2024Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. " 'Id. at 390. " 'A change in the law does not run afoul of the ex post facto clause if it only affects a mode of procedure and does not alter "substantial personal rights." Huiett, 302 S.C. at 171 , 394 S.E.2d at 487 (quoting Miller, 482 U.S. at 430 , 107 S. Ct. 2446 ).

2011A conclusion that the legislature intended to punish would satisfy an ex post facto challenge without further inquiry into its effects, so considerable deference must be accorded to the intent as the legislature has stated it. “ ‘The courts “must first ask whether the legislature, in establishing the penalizing mechanism, indicated either expressly or impliedly a preference for one label or the other.” Hudson, supra, at 99 (internal quotation marks omitted).’ “538 U. S. at 92-93, 123 S.Ct. 1140 .

2004"The courts `must first ask whether the legislature, in establishing the penalizing mechanism, indicated either expressly *Page 1042 or impliedly a preference for one label or the other.' Hudson, supra , at 99[, 118 S.Ct. 488 ] (internal quotation marks omitted)." 538 U.S. at 92 -93 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 .

2002The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this issue in Potts v. State, 426 So.2d 896, 900 (Ala.1983), where the court stated, "The appellant's argument that applying in his trial the procedures we set forth in Beck v. State, 396 So.2d 645 (Ala. 1980), violated the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution is without merit.

1988Ex parte Potts , 426 So.2d 896 (Ala. 1983).

2024See, e.g., United States v. Ballone, 762 F.2d 1381, 1383 (11th Cir. 1985) (recognizing that "[t]he change in standards governing availability of bail pending appeal [under the Bail Reform Act of 1984] is procedural, and not an increase in punishment prohibited by the ex post facto clause" and holding there was no violation when the change in law was effective at the time the right to bail was considered"); United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 19, 21 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that application of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 to defendants whose alleged criminal events took place before the act did not

2024See, e.g., United States v. Ballone, 762 F.2d 1381, 1383 (11th Cir. 1985) (recognizing that "[t]he change in standards governing availability of bail pending appeal [under the Bail Reform Act of 1984] is procedural, and not an increase in punishment prohibited by the ex post facto clause" and holding there was no violation when the change in law was effective at the time the right to bail was considered"); United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 19, 21 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that application of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 to defendants whose alleged criminal events took place before the act did not

2024See, e.g., United States v. Ballone, 762 F.2d 1381, 1383 (11th Cir. 1985) (recognizing that "[t]he change in standards governing availability of bail pending appeal [under the Bail Reform Act of 1984] is procedural, and not an increase in punishment prohibited by the ex post facto clause" and holding there was no violation when the change in law was effective at the time the right to bail was considered"); United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 19, 21 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that application of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 to defendants whose alleged criminal events took place before the act did not

2024App. 1988) ("A violation of the ex post facto clause may not be raised for the first time on appeal."); and Hale v. State, 848 So. 2d 224, 233 (Ala. 2002) (holding that the defendant had waived his arguments regarding the application of sentencing enhancements by not raising the arguments at trial).

2023See Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U.S. 380, 386-87 , 18 S.Ct. 922 , 43 L.Ed. 204 (1898) (finding application of law admitting previously inadmissible handwriting samples did not violate ex post facto clause); Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 589 , 4 S.Ct. 202 , 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884) (holding admission of convicted felon's testimony, inadmissible at the time homicide was committed, did not violate ex post facto clause).

2023See Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U.S. 380, 386-87 , 18 S.Ct. 922 , 43 L.Ed. 204 (1898) (finding application of law admitting previously inadmissible handwriting samples did not violate ex post facto clause); Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 589 , 4 S.Ct. 202 , 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884) (holding admission of convicted felon's testimony, inadmissible at the time homicide was committed, did not violate ex post facto clause).

2023See Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U.S. 380, 386-87 , 18 S.Ct. 922 , 43 L.Ed. 204 (1898) (finding application of law admitting previously inadmissible handwriting samples did not violate ex post facto clause); Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 589 , 4 S.Ct. 202 , 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884) (holding admission of convicted felon's testimony, inadmissible at the time homicide was committed, did not violate ex post facto clause).

2023See Hall v. Vargas, 278 Ga. 868 , 608 S.E.2d 200, 202 (2005) (holding statutory change permitting state to introduce additional evidence in the form of hearsay statements attributed to child victim did not present an ex post facto violation); Villalon v. State, 805 S.W.2d 588, 591-92 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991) (finding statutory amendment changing rule of evidence to eliminate hearsay as a bar to the admissibility of certain category of outcry statements did not violate the ex post facto clause); Glendening v. State, 503 So. 2d 335, 337-38 (Fla. Dist.

2023See Hall v. Vargas, 278 Ga. 868 , 608 S.E.2d 200, 202 (2005) (holding statutory change permitting state to introduce additional evidence in the form of hearsay statements attributed to child victim did not present an ex post facto violation); Villalon v. State, 805 S.W.2d 588, 591-92 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991) (finding statutory amendment changing rule of evidence to eliminate hearsay as a bar to the admissibility of certain category of outcry statements did not violate the ex post facto clause); Glendening v. State, 503 So. 2d 335, 337-38 (Fla. Dist.

2023See Hall v. Vargas, 278 Ga. 868 , 608 S.E.2d 200, 202 (2005) (holding statutory change permitting state to introduce additional evidence in the form of hearsay statements attributed to child victim did not present an ex post facto violation); Villalon v. State, 805 S.W.2d 588, 591-92 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991) (finding statutory amendment changing rule of evidence to eliminate hearsay as a bar to the admissibility of certain category of outcry statements did not violate the ex post facto clause); Glendening v. State, 503 So. 2d 335, 337-38 (Fla. Dist.

2023See Hall v. Vargas, 278 Ga. 868 , 608 S.E.2d 200, 202 (2005) (holding statutory change permitting state to introduce additional evidence in the form of hearsay statements attributed to child victim did not present an ex post facto violation); Villalon v. State, 805 S.W.2d 588, 591-92 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991) (finding statutory amendment changing rule of evidence to eliminate hearsay as a bar to the admissibility of certain category of outcry statements did not violate the ex post facto clause); Glendening v. State, 503 So. 2d 335, 337-38 (Fla. Dist.

2023See Hall v. Vargas, 278 Ga. 868 , 608 S.E.2d 200, 202 (2005) (holding statutory change permitting state to introduce additional evidence in the form of hearsay statements attributed to child victim did not present an ex post facto violation); Villalon v. State, 805 S.W.2d 588, 591-92 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991) (finding statutory amendment changing rule of evidence to eliminate hearsay as a bar to the admissibility of certain category of outcry statements did not violate the ex post facto clause); Glendening v. State, 503 So. 2d 335, 337-38 (Fla. Dist.

2023See Hall v. Vargas, 278 Ga. 868 , 608 S.E.2d 200, 202 (2005) (holding statutory change permitting state to introduce additional evidence in the form of hearsay statements attributed to child victim did not present an ex post facto violation); Villalon v. State, 805 S.W.2d 588, 591-92 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991) (finding statutory amendment changing rule of evidence to eliminate hearsay as a bar to the admissibility of certain category of outcry statements did not violate the ex post facto clause); Glendening v. State, 503 So. 2d 335, 337-38 (Fla. Dist.

2011Moreover, while Crawford’s case was pending review in this Court, we addressed an ex post facto challenge to the CNA in Cosper v. State, 89 So.3d 186, 190 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).