offense violation in Alabama

21 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1915–2025 2 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 (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1931 · cited in 9 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2025 2 sentences 2025"In Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States enumerated the 'same elements' test for determining whether two charges constitute the same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). 2024See Ex parte Benefield, 932 So. 2d 92 (Ala. 2005). 7 CR-2024-0333 "…. " '(a) … An offense is an included if: " '(1) It is established by proof of the same or fewer than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged. " '…. " '(4) It differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property or public interests, or a lesser kind of culpability suffices to establish its commission.' "§ 13A-1-9, Ala. Code 1975. " 'In Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States enumerated the "sa	2	9
Gholston v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2010 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2017–2025 2 sentences 2025Under the Blockburger test, 'where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses 19 CR-2023-0826 or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.' Id. (emphasis added)." Gholston v. State, 57 So. 3d 178, 184 (Ala. Crim. 2017Under the Blockburger test, 'where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.' Id. (emphasis added)." Gholston v. State , 57 So.3d 178 , 184 (Ala. Crim.	1	3
Ex Parte Benefieldgreen ala · 2005 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See Ex parte Benefield, 932 So. 2d 92 (Ala. 2005). 7 CR-2024-0333 "…. " '(a) … An offense is an included if: " '(1) It is established by proof of the same or fewer than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged. " '…. " '(4) It differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property or public interests, or a lesser kind of culpability suffices to establish its commission.' "§ 13A-1-9, Ala. Code 1975. " 'In Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States enumerated the "sa	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
Funches v. State neutral alacrimapp · 1975 2 sentences 1983In Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), it was held: "In order to make operative Title 22, Section 258 (53)(a)(b), supra, evidence of a former conviction is not admissible unless it is alleged in the indictment and proof offered in support thereof." In Napier v. State , 344 So.2d 1235 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 344 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1977), this court observed: "We hold that it is proper for an indictment for an offense in violation of the Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act to contain the averment that the 1983In Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), it was held: "In order to make operative Title 22, Section 258 (53)(a)(b), supra, evidence of a former conviction is not admissible unless it is alleged in the indictment and proof offered in support thereof." In Napier v. State , 344 So.2d 1235 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 344 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1977), this court observed: "We hold that it is proper for an indictment for an offense in violation of the Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act to contain the averment that the	2	1977–1983
Weaver v. State neutral alacrimapp · 1975 2 sentences 1983In Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), it was held: "In order to make operative Title 22, Section 258 (53)(a)(b), supra, evidence of a former conviction is not admissible unless it is alleged in the indictment and proof offered in support thereof." In Napier v. State , 344 So.2d 1235 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 344 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1977), this court observed: "We hold that it is proper for an indictment for an offense in violation of the Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act to contain the averment that the 1983The trial court, in the absence of such averment in the indictment, was without authority to impose an imprisonment sentence in excess of fifteen years imprisonment." Also, in Kidd v. State , 398 So.2d 349 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 398 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1981), this court held: "It is reasonably clear from Napier , supra, and from Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 , cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), that when the State wishes to bring a defendant under the ambit of Section 20-2-76 the prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and later proven at tri	2	1977–1983
Funches v. State neutral ala · 1975 2 sentences 1983In Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), it was held: "In order to make operative Title 22, Section 258 (53)(a)(b), supra, evidence of a former conviction is not admissible unless it is alleged in the indictment and proof offered in support thereof." In Napier v. State , 344 So.2d 1235 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 344 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1977), this court observed: "We hold that it is proper for an indictment for an offense in violation of the Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act to contain the averment that the 1983The trial court, in the absence of such averment in the indictment, was without authority to impose an imprisonment sentence in excess of fifteen years imprisonment." Also, in Kidd v. State , 398 So.2d 349 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 398 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1981), this court held: "It is reasonably clear from Napier , supra, and from Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 , cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), that when the State wishes to bring a defendant under the ambit of Section 20-2-76 the prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and later proven at tri	2	1977–1983
Whitehead v. State green ala · 1921 2 sentences 1977Whitehead v. State, 206 Ala. 288 , 90 So. 351 ; Ward v. State, 19 Ala.App. 398 , 98 So. 208 , cert. denied 210 Ala. 366 , 98 So. 210 . 1977Whitehead v. State, 206 Ala. 288 , 90 So. 351 ; Ward v. State, 19 Ala.App. 398 , 98 So. 208 , cert. denied 210 Ala. 366 , 98 So. 210 .	2	1977–1977
Fuller v. State neutral alactapp · 1923 2 sentences 1977Whitehead v. State, 206 Ala. 288 , 90 So. 351 ; Ward v. State, 19 Ala.App. 398 , 98 So. 208 , cert. denied 210 Ala. 366 , 98 So. 210 . 1977Whitehead v. State, 206 Ala. 288 , 90 So. 351 ; Ward v. State, 19 Ala.App. 398 , 98 So. 208 , cert. denied 210 Ala. 366 , 98 So. 210 .	2	1977–1977
Ex Parte Ward neutral ala · 1923 2 sentences 1977Whitehead v. State, 206 Ala. 288 , 90 So. 351 ; Ward v. State, 19 Ala.App. 398 , 98 So. 208 , cert. denied 210 Ala. 366 , 98 So. 210 . 1977Whitehead v. State, 206 Ala. 288 , 90 So. 351 ; Ward v. State, 19 Ala.App. 398 , 98 So. 208 , cert. denied 210 Ala. 366 , 98 So. 210 .	2	1977–1977
Ward v. State neutral · 1923 2 sentences 1977Whitehead v. State, 206 Ala. 288 , 90 So. 351 ; Ward v. State, 19 Ala.App. 398 , 98 So. 208 , cert. denied 210 Ala. 366 , 98 So. 210 . 1977Whitehead v. State, 206 Ala. 288 , 90 So. 351 ; Ward v. State, 19 Ala.App. 398 , 98 So. 208 , cert. denied 210 Ala. 366 , 98 So. 210 .	2	1977–1977
Kellam v. State neutral alactapp · 1951 2 sentences 1988Kellam v. State, 36 Ala.App. 332 , 55 So.2d 517 (1951) states, "Where another who was under indictment for the same offense took the stand to testify for the defendant but, upon being advised by the court of his constitutional rights, elected to claim privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify, refusal to permit introduction into evidence of his written 330 declaration as to commission of the offense was not error." But, in this case, the declaration is not an admission to a crime. 1988Kellam v. State, 36 Ala.App. 332 , 55 So.2d 517 (1951) states, "Where another who was under indictment for the same offense took the stand to testify for the defendant but, upon being advised by the court of his constitutional rights, elected to claim privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify, refusal to permit introduction into evidence of his written 330 declaration as to commission of the offense was not error." But, in this case, the declaration is not an admission to a crime.	1	1988–1988
Mosley v. City of Auburn green alacrimapp · 1982 1 sentence 1987Therefore, in allowing the State to amend the original complaint to include a violation of subsection (a)(1), supra, the trial judge permitted the addition of a different offense in violation of the rules as herein set out in Mosley , supra (as limited), Edwards , supra, and Rule 15.5(a), A.Temp.R.Crim.P.	1	1987–1987
Edwards v. State green alacrimapp · 1985 1 sentence 1987Therefore, in allowing the State to amend the original complaint to include a violation of subsection (a)(1), supra, the trial judge permitted the addition of a different offense in violation of the rules as herein set out in Mosley , supra (as limited), Edwards , supra, and Rule 15.5(a), A.Temp.R.Crim.P.	1	1987–1987
Ex Parte Kidd green ala · 1981 1 sentence 1983The trial court, in the absence of such averment in the indictment, was without authority to impose an imprisonment sentence in excess of fifteen years imprisonment." Also, in Kidd v. State , 398 So.2d 349 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 398 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1981), this court held: "It is reasonably clear from Napier , supra, and from Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 , cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), that when the State wishes to bring a defendant under the ambit of Section 20-2-76 the prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and later proven at tri	1	1983–1983
Kidd v. State green alacrimapp · 1981 2 sentences 1983The trial court, in the absence of such averment in the indictment, was without authority to impose an imprisonment sentence in excess of fifteen years imprisonment." Also, in Kidd v. State , 398 So.2d 349 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 398 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1981), this court held: "It is reasonably clear from Napier , supra, and from Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 , cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), that when the State wishes to bring a defendant under the ambit of Section 20-2-76 the prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and later proven at tri 1983The trial court, in the absence of such averment in the indictment, was without authority to impose an imprisonment sentence in excess of fifteen years imprisonment." Also, in Kidd v. State , 398 So.2d 349 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 398 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1981), this court held: "It is reasonably clear from Napier , supra, and from Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 , cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), that when the State wishes to bring a defendant under the ambit of Section 20-2-76 the prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and later proven at tri	1	1983–1983
Smith v. State green alacrimapp · 1977 1 sentence 1983In Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), it was held: "In order to make operative Title 22, Section 258 (53)(a)(b), supra, evidence of a former conviction is not admissible unless it is alleged in the indictment and proof offered in support thereof." In Napier v. State , 344 So.2d 1235 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 344 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1977), this court observed: "We hold that it is proper for an indictment for an offense in violation of the Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act to contain the averment that the	1	1983–1983
Napier v. State green alacrimapp · 1977 2 sentences 1983In Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), it was held: "In order to make operative Title 22, Section 258 (53)(a)(b), supra, evidence of a former conviction is not admissible unless it is alleged in the indictment and proof offered in support thereof." In Napier v. State , 344 So.2d 1235 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 344 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1977), this court observed: "We hold that it is proper for an indictment for an offense in violation of the Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act to contain the averment that the 1983The trial court, in the absence of such averment in the indictment, was without authority to impose an imprisonment sentence in excess of fifteen years imprisonment." Also, in Kidd v. State , 398 So.2d 349 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 398 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1981), this court held: "It is reasonably clear from Napier , supra, and from Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 , cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), that when the State wishes to bring a defendant under the ambit of Section 20-2-76 the prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and later proven at tri	1	1983–1983
Luttrell v. State neutral alacrimapp · 1978 2 sentences 1983In Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), it was held: "In order to make operative Title 22, Section 258 (53)(a)(b), supra, evidence of a former conviction is not admissible unless it is alleged in the indictment and proof offered in support thereof." In Napier v. State , 344 So.2d 1235 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 344 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1977), this court observed: "We hold that it is proper for an indictment for an offense in violation of the Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act to contain the averment that the 1983The trial court, in the absence of such averment in the indictment, was without authority to impose an imprisonment sentence in excess of fifteen years imprisonment." Also, in Kidd v. State , 398 So.2d 349 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 398 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1981), this court held: "It is reasonably clear from Napier , supra, and from Funches v. State , 56 Ala. App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 , cert. denied , 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), that when the State wishes to bring a defendant under the ambit of Section 20-2-76 the prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and later proven at tri	1	1983–1983
Highsmith v. State green alacrimapp · 1975 2 sentences 1981Highsmith v. State , 55 Ala. App. 272 , 314 So.2d 874 (1975). 1981Highsmith v. State , 55 Ala. App. 272 , 314 So.2d 874 (1975).	1	1981–1981
O'TINGER v. State green alacrimapp · 1977 1 sentence 1978Ex parte Holt, Ala. [Ms. August 4, 1978, SC 77-150]; O’Tinger v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 1343 (1977).	1	1978–1978
Parsons v. State green · 1886 1 sentence 1977We decline petitioner's invitation to overrule Parsons v. State , 81 Ala. 577 , 2 So. 854 (1887).	1	1977–1977
Dickey v. State green alactapp · 1946 2 sentences 1948The sentence imposed affords 581 no ground for such an inference, as was the situation in Dickey v. State, 32 Ala.App. 413 , 26 So.2d 532 , nor does describing the offense as a violation of the Internal Revenue Act. 1948The sentence imposed affords 581 no ground for such an inference, as was the situation in Dickey v. State, 32 Ala.App. 413 , 26 So.2d 532 , nor does describing the offense as a violation of the Internal Revenue Act.	1	1948–1948
Ex Parte Watts green ala · 1923 1 sentence 1923Lon Gilbert v. State, ante, p. 104, 95 South. 502 .	1	1923–1923
Battle v. Mayor of Marietta neutral ga · 1903 2 sentences 1915The Supreme Court of Georgia, acting upon the common-law principle embodied in the maxim, “Nullus tern-pus occurrit regem,” have held that, where the municipal charter fails to provide a limitation, no lapse of time after the commission of an offense in violation of a city will bar ’a prosecution therefor, unless the ordinance itself, or other ordinances of the city, prescribe some limitation. —Battle v. Marietta, 118 Ga. 242 , 44 S. E. 994 ; Bell v. Forsyth, 126 Ga. 443 , 55 S. E. 230 ; Norris v. Thompson (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 866 ; Ramsey v. Atlanta (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 148 . 1915The Supreme Court of Georgia, acting upon the common-law principle embodied in the maxim, “Nullus tern-pus occurrit regem,” have held that, where the municipal charter fails to provide a limitation, no lapse of time after the commission of an offense in violation of a city will bar ’a prosecution therefor, unless the ordinance itself, or other ordinances of the city, prescribe some limitation. —Battle v. Marietta, 118 Ga. 242 , 44 S. E. 994 ; Bell v. Forsyth, 126 Ga. 443 , 55 S. E. 230 ; Norris v. Thompson (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 866 ; Ramsey v. Atlanta (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 148 .	1	1915–1915
Bell v. Mayor of Forsyth green ga · 1906 2 sentences 1915The Supreme Court of Georgia, acting upon the common-law principle embodied in the maxim, “Nullus tern-pus occurrit regem,” have held that, where the municipal charter fails to provide a limitation, no lapse of time after the commission of an offense in violation of a city will bar ’a prosecution therefor, unless the ordinance itself, or other ordinances of the city, prescribe some limitation. —Battle v. Marietta, 118 Ga. 242 , 44 S. E. 994 ; Bell v. Forsyth, 126 Ga. 443 , 55 S. E. 230 ; Norris v. Thompson (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 866 ; Ramsey v. Atlanta (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 148 . 1915The Supreme Court of Georgia, acting upon the common-law principle embodied in the maxim, “Nullus tern-pus occurrit regem,” have held that, where the municipal charter fails to provide a limitation, no lapse of time after the commission of an offense in violation of a city will bar ’a prosecution therefor, unless the ordinance itself, or other ordinances of the city, prescribe some limitation. —Battle v. Marietta, 118 Ga. 242 , 44 S. E. 994 ; Bell v. Forsyth, 126 Ga. 443 , 55 S. E. 230 ; Norris v. Thompson (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 866 ; Ramsey v. Atlanta (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 148 .	1	1915–1915
Saunders v. State neutral gactapp · 1914 1 sentence 1915The Supreme Court of Georgia, acting upon the common-law principle embodied in the maxim, “Nullus tern-pus occurrit regem,” have held that, where the municipal charter fails to provide a limitation, no lapse of time after the commission of an offense in violation of a city will bar ’a prosecution therefor, unless the ordinance itself, or other ordinances of the city, prescribe some limitation. —Battle v. Marietta, 118 Ga. 242 , 44 S. E. 994 ; Bell v. Forsyth, 126 Ga. 443 , 55 S. E. 230 ; Norris v. Thompson (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 866 ; Ramsey v. Atlanta (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 148 .	1	1915–1915
Norris v. Mayor of Thomson neutral gactapp · 1914 1 sentence 1915The Supreme Court of Georgia, acting upon the common-law principle embodied in the maxim, “Nullus tern-pus occurrit regem,” have held that, where the municipal charter fails to provide a limitation, no lapse of time after the commission of an offense in violation of a city will bar ’a prosecution therefor, unless the ordinance itself, or other ordinances of the city, prescribe some limitation. —Battle v. Marietta, 118 Ga. 242 , 44 S. E. 994 ; Bell v. Forsyth, 126 Ga. 443 , 55 S. E. 230 ; Norris v. Thompson (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 866 ; Ramsey v. Atlanta (Ga. App.) 83 S. E. 148 .	1	1915–1915

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-1-9 (5) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-1-8 (4) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-6-21 (4) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-10-41 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-2-23 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-4-3 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-40 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-6-2 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-6-22 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-8-41 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-8-43 (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

TX 265 (1896–2026) CA 126 (1894–2025) IL 121 (1947–2025) OH 120 (1966–2026) IN 106 (1931–2020) MO 88 (1902–2024) FL 56 (1931–2025) KS 53 (1909–2026) WA 49 (1971–2026) TN 47 (1916–2026) VA 42 (1922–2025) MI 35 (1971–2026) OR 31 (1964–2026) PA 30 (1924–2025) NY 29 (1952–2024) GA 26 (1901–2025) NC 25 (1973–2024) NJ 23 (1949–2024) AZ 22 (1923–2025) AL 21 (1915–2025) LA 20 (1951–2023) CO 18 (1982–2026) NM 18 (1975–2025) MN 17 (1945–2016) CT 16 (1957–2020) MA 16 (1977–2023) HI 15 (1952–2013) DC 14 (1979–2024) AR 14 (1877–2021) ID 13 (1952–2026) MD 12 (1977–2022) WI 11 (1908–2025) ND 9 (1912–2023) WV 9 (1961–2023) VT 8 (1994–2018) NE 8 (1977–2025) OK 8 (1911–2019) IA 8 (1871–2018) MT 8 (1951–2025) KY 7 (1917–2016) WY 7 (1977–2000) NH 6 (1971–2017) AK 6 (1982–1996) MS 5 (2001–2025) UT 5 (1993–2015) NV 4 (1994–2011) RI 4 (1970–2017) VI 3 (2012–2014) SD 3 (1987–2018) ME 2 (1998–2000)

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