137 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1916–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cage v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2012In affirming a reasonable-doubt instruction substantially similar to the challenged instruction we stated: “Although the trial court did refer to a reasonable doubt as an ‘actual doubt,’ it did not state that the doubt must be ‘grave’ or ‘substantial,’ as the faulty charge in Cage [v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990) ] instructed. 2011Specifically, the Cage court held that ‘[i]t is plain to us that the words “substantial” and “grave,” as they are commonly understood, suggest a higher degree of doubt than is required for acquittal under the reasonable-doubt standard.’ Cage, 498 U.S. at 41 .” “In Smith v. State, this court reviewed a similar issue and held as follows: “ ‘Although the trial court did refer to a reasonable doubt as an “actual doubt,” it did not state that the doubt must be “grave” or “substantial,” as the faulty charge in Cage instructed. | 6 | 32 |
Coral v. Stategreen2 sentences2011In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), affd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert, denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. Sta 2010In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. St | 6 | 10 |
Knotts v. Stategreen2 sentences2011P.”). “ ‘ “ ‘After finding error, an appellate court may still affirm a conviction on the ground that the error was harmless, if indeed it was.’ Guthrie v. State, 616 So.2d 914, 931 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). ‘The harmless error rule applies in capital cases.’ Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 469 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), opinion after remand, 686 So.2d 484 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), affd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala.1996), cert, denied, 520 U.S. 1199 , 117 S.Ct. 1559 , 137 L.Ed.2d 706 (1997), citing Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241 (Al 2010See Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P.”). “ ‘ “ ‘After finding error, an appellate court may still affirm a conviction on the ground that the error was harmless, if indeed it was.’ Guthrie v. State, 616 So.2d 914, 931 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). ‘The harmless error rule applies in capital cases.’ Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 469 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), opinion after remand, 686 So.2d 484 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1199 , 117 S.Ct. 1559 , 137 L.Ed.2d 706 (1997), citing Ex parte Whisen | 6 | 6 |
Guthrie v. Stategreen2 sentences2011P.”). “ ‘ “ ‘After finding error, an appellate court may still affirm a conviction on the ground that the error was harmless, if indeed it was.’ Guthrie v. State, 616 So.2d 914, 931 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). ‘The harmless error rule applies in capital cases.’ Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 469 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), opinion after remand, 686 So.2d 484 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), affd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala.1996), cert, denied, 520 U.S. 1199 , 117 S.Ct. 1559 , 137 L.Ed.2d 706 (1997), citing Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241 (Al 2010See Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P.”). “ ‘ “ ‘After finding error, an appellate court may still affirm a conviction on the ground that the error was harmless, if indeed it was.’ Guthrie v. State, 616 So.2d 914, 931 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). ‘The harmless error rule applies in capital cases.’ Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 469 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), opinion after remand, 686 So.2d 484 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1199 , 117 S.Ct. 1559 , 137 L.Ed.2d 706 (1997), citing Ex parte Whisen | 4 | 5 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2015The Supreme Court held that this error was subject to a harmless-error analysis and that an error is harmless when it “appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Id. at 15 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). 2015The Supreme Court held that this error was subject to a harmless-error analysis and that an error is harmless when it “appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Id. at 15 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). | 3 | 21 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Further, this court has ‘previously held, that there is ño plain error when a trial court, in the penalty phase of a capital trial, relies on a reasonable-doubt instruction it had given in the guilt phase of the proceedings.’ Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 875-76 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2010Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Cr.App.1999).” Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 874 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).’ “Snyder v. State, 893 So.2d 488, 548 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).” Belisle v. State, 11 So.3d 256, 308 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), affirmed, 11 So.3d 323 (Ala.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2865 , 174 L.Ed.2d 582 (2009.) A review of the entire reasonable-doubt instruction given by the trial court in the present case reveals that it properly followed the legal guidelines and the Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions in instructing the jury. | 3 | 3 |
| Price v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Woodgreen | 3 | 3 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Cage, 498 U.S. at 40 , 111 S.Ct. at 328 (holding that the terms ‘grave’ and ‘substantial’ suggest a higher degree of doubt than that actually required to acquit).” Smith v. State, 756 So.2d 892, 922 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). 2010However, “‘We have upheld a similar reasonable doubt instruction against a claim of plain error.’ Smith v. State, 756 So.2d 892 (Ala. Cr.App.1998).” Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 831 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), cert, denied, 795 So.2d 842 (Ala.2001), cert, denied, Smith v. Alabama, 534 U.S. 872 , 122 S.Ct. 166 , 151 L.Ed.2d 113 (2001). | 2 | 5 |
Lambeth v. Stategreen2 sentences2010“The trial court in its oral instructions to the jury discussed the reasonable doubt standard as applied to the evidence in its totality and substantially and fairly covered that standard.” Lambeth v. State, 380 So.2d 923, 924-25 (Ala.1979). 1989That court held that the principle was substantially and fairly covered in the trial court's charge to the jury: "[I]f by the oral charge or by other requested jury instructions, the jury is presented a discussion of the reasonable doubt standard as applied to the evidence in its totality, then the failure to give instructions similar to defendant's charges . . . is not error to reverse." Lambeth , 380 So.2d at 925 . | 2 | 5 |
William George Bonin v. Arthur Calderon, as Warden of San Quentin State Prison James Rowland, Director of the California Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2014The ‘inquiry is limited to whether [the chosen defense] might have been a reasonable one.’ Id., citing Harich v. Dugger, 844 F.2d 1464, 1470-71 (11th Cir.1988)(en banc); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 838 (9th Cir.1995).” ’ ” 112 So.3d at 1140-41 . 2012The “inquiry is limited to whether [the chosen defense] might have been a reasonable one.” Id., citing Harich v. Dugger, 844 F.2d 1464, 1470-71 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 838 (9th Cir.1995).’ ” 929 So.2d at 503-04. | 2 | 3 |
Roy Allen Harich v. Richard Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondentgreen2 sentences2014The ‘inquiry is limited to whether [the chosen defense] might have been a reasonable one.’ Id., citing Harich v. Dugger, 844 F.2d 1464, 1470-71 (11th Cir.1988)(en banc); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 838 (9th Cir.1995).” ’ ” 112 So.3d at 1140-41 . 2012The “inquiry is limited to whether [the chosen defense] might have been a reasonable one.” Id., citing Harich v. Dugger, 844 F.2d 1464, 1470-71 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 838 (9th Cir.1995).’ ” 929 So.2d at 503-04. | 2 | 3 |
David Ronald Chandler v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014Moreover, because the chosen theory of defense was reasonable, ‘it is immaterial that some other reasonable courses of defense (that the lawyer did not think of at all) existed and that the lawyer’s pursuit of [a reasonable-doubt defense] was not a deliberate choice between [it and some other course].’ Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1316, n. 16 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc). 2012Moreover, because the chosen theory of defense was reasonable, “it is immaterial that some other reasonable courses of defense (that the lawyer did not think of at all) existed and that the lawyer’s pursuit of [a reasonable-doubt defense] was not a deliberate choice between [it and some other course].” Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1316, n. 16 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc). | 2 | 3 |
| Griffin v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Davis v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Sale v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| McNabb v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Smith v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Harris v. Statered | 2 | 2 |
| Reeves v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| McMillian v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Because if you are convinced to the point where you no longer have a reasonable doubt, then you are convinced to a moral certainty." This reasonable doubt instruction given by the court is similar to the instruction given in Smith v. State , 588 So.2d 561 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), and found not to violate Cage v. Louisiana , 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), and to be a permissible instruction on reasonable doubt. 1992See, Williams v. State , 601 So.2d 1062 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Adams v. State , 587 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991).' Earhart v. State , 593 So.2d 119 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991). *Page 206 Thus, the trial court's instruction to the jury concerning the reasonable doubt standard in the present case was proper." Smith v. State , 588 So.2d 561 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991). | 1 | 5 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2024"In Brown v. State, 11 So. 3d 866 (Ala. Crim. 2013In Brown v. State, 11 So.3d 866 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), this Court addressed a claim of error based upon the prosecutor’s argument: “Remember I told you, you would know it in your gut what’s reasonable doubt? | 1 | 3 |
| Williams v. Stategreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Schwartzgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Bush v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Goodwin v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Johnson v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Ex Parte Whisenhantgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Knotts v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Ex Parte Knottsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Sanders v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Wallis v. Hernando Countygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Sims v. Floridagreen | 1 | 2 |
| Vrettos v. United Machine Specialties Corp.green | 1 | 2 |
| Ex Parte Jesse Lee Morrisongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Langleygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Ex Parte Taylorgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Thomas v. Chatergreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2000Victor v. Nebraska ; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1023 , 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala. Cr.App.1994). "`In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole.' Victor v. Nebraska ; Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, *955 396 U.S. 1018 , 90 S.Ct. 583 , 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970); Williams v. State, 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). 2000Victor v. Nebraska; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1023 , 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). “ ‘In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole.’ Victor v. Nebraska; Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1018 , 90 S.Ct. 583 , 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970); Williams v. State, 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). | 16 | 1991–2017 |
Loy Lavator Baker v. United States
green
2 sentences2000Victor v. Nebraska ; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1023 , 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala. Cr.App.1994). "`In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole.' Victor v. Nebraska ; Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, *955 396 U.S. 1018 , 90 S.Ct. 583 , 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970); Williams v. State, 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). 2000Victor v. Nebraska; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1023 , 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). “ ‘In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole.’ Victor v. Nebraska; Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1018 , 90 S.Ct. 583 , 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970); Williams v. State, 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). | 15 | 1991–2017 |
Black v. United States
green
2 sentences2000Victor v. Nebraska ; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1023 , 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala. Cr.App.1994). "`In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole.' Victor v. Nebraska ; Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, *955 396 U.S. 1018 , 90 S.Ct. 583 , 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970); Williams v. State, 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). 2000Victor v. Nebraska; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1023 , 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). “ ‘In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole.’ Victor v. Nebraska; Baker v. United States, 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1018 , 90 S.Ct. 583 , 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970); Williams v. State, 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). | 15 | 1991–2017 |
Kotteakos v. United States
green
2 sentences2014In order for a -non-constitutional error to be deemed harmless, the appellate court must determine with “fair assurances ... that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.” Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). 2014In order for a -non-constitutional error to be deemed harmless, the appellate court must determine with “fair assurances ... that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.” Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). | 9 | 1995–2014 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2011Revis alleges that the trial court’s reasonable-doubt instruction was erroneous because, he says, it allowed his conviction to be based on proof insufficient to meet the standard established in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). 2011Revis alleges that the trial court’s reasonable-doubt instruction was erroneous because, he says, it allowed his conviction to be based on proof insufficient to meet the standard established in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). | 9 | 1977–2011 |
Ex Parte Coral
green
2 sentences2011In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), affd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert, denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. Sta 2010In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. St | 8 | 1997–2011 |
Martin v. Omega Medical Center Associates
green
2 sentences2011In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), affd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert, denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. Sta 2010In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. St | 8 | 1997–2011 |
Hoffman v. Idaho
green
2 sentences2011In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), affd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert, denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. Sta 2010In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. St | 8 | 1997–2011 |
Victor v. Nebraska
green
2 sentences2003Stallworth argues that the trial court's reasonable doubt instruction violated the United States Supreme Court's holdings in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), and Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 , 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994). 2003Stallworth argues that the trial court's reasonable doubt instruction violated the United States Supreme Court's holdings in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), and Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 , 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994). | 7 | 1994–2003 |
Ex Parte Kirby
neutral
2 sentences2011Victor v. Nebraska; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, [513] U.S. [1023], 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). “ ‘In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole. 2011Victor v. Nebraska; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, [513] U.S. [1023], 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). “ ‘ “In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole. | 5 | 2000–2011 |
Cox v. State
green
2 sentences2011Victor v. Nebraska; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, [513] U.S. [1023], 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). “ ‘In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole. 2011Victor v. Nebraska; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, [513] U.S. [1023], 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). “ ‘ “In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole. | 5 | 2000–2011 |
Coral v. State
green
2 sentences2011In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), affd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert, denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. Sta 2010In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. St | 5 | 1997–2011 |
Edinbyrd v. California
neutral
2 sentences2011Victor v. Nebraska; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, [513] U.S. [1023], 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). “ ‘In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole. 2011Victor v. Nebraska; Ex parte Kirby, 643 So.2d 587 (Ala.), cert. denied, [513] U.S. [1023], 115 S.Ct. 591 , 130 L.Ed.2d 504 (1994); Cox v. State, 660 So.2d 233 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). “ ‘ “In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole. | 5 | 2000–2011 |
Houston v. State
green
2 sentences2007“An error involving an infringement of a defendant’s constitutional right can be held harmless only if the court is able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.” Houston, 354 So.2d at 828 . 2005The receipt of this evidence, may be harmless. `An error involving an infringement of a defendant's constitutional right can be held harmless only if the court is able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.' Houston , 354 So.2d at 828 . | 3 | 1992–2007 |
| Alborola-Rodriguez v. United States green | 3 | 2000–2003 |
| Meece v. Rolex Watch, U. S. A., Inc. green | 3 | 2000–2003 |
Underwood v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2003The instruction did not contain the term `actual substantial doubt.' `"A trial court's following of an accepted pattern jury instruction weighs heavily against any finding of plain error."' Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856 (Ala.Cr.App.1999), quoting Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1058 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999). 2001"A trial court's following of an accepted pattern jury instruction weighs heavily against any finding of plain error." Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1058 (Ala. *264 Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999). | 3 | 2000–2003 |
Dobyne v. State
green
2 sentences2003The trial court's mere use of the phrase `reasonably substantial doubt' cannot be equated with the instruction condemned in Cage , where the reasonable-doubt instruction contained the phrase `actual substantial doubt' as well as the phrases `grave uncertainty' and `moral certainty.' See, e.g., Dobyne v. State, 672 So.2d 1319 (Ala.Crim.App.), opinion after remand, 672 So.2d 1353 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), aff'd, 672 So.2d 1354 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1169 , 116 S.Ct. 1571 , 134 L.Ed.2d 670 (1996)(upholding a charge using the phrase `reasonably substantial doubt' because it `contained none 2003The trial court's mere use of the phrase `reasonably substantial doubt' cannot be equated with the instruction condemned in *777 Cage , where the reasonable-doubt instruction contained the phrase `actual substantial doubt' as well as the phrases `grave uncertainty' and `moral certainty.' See, e.g., Dobyne v. State, 672 So.2d 1319 (Ala.Crim.App.), opinion after remand, 672 So.2d 1353 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), aff'd, 672 So.2d 1354 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1169 , 116 S.Ct. 1571 , 134 L.Ed.2d 670 (1996)(upholding a charge using the phrase `reasonably substantial doubt' because it `contained | 3 | 2000–2003 |
| Ex Parte Dobyne green | 3 | 2000–2003 |
| Dobyne v. State green | 3 | 2000–2003 |
| Ifill v. District of Columbia green | 3 | 2000–2003 |
| Burress v. Unitarian-Universalist Society of Sacramento, Inc. green | 3 | 2000–2003 |
| Dobyne v. Alabama green | 3 | 2000–2003 |
Price v. State.
green
2 sentences2003The instruction did not contain the term `actual substantial doubt.' `"A trial court's following of an accepted pattern jury instruction weighs heavily against any finding of plain error."' Wilson v. State, 777 So.2d 856 (Ala.Cr.App.1999), quoting Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1058 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999). 2001"A trial court's following of an accepted pattern jury instruction weighs heavily against any finding of plain error." Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1058 (Ala. *264 Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999). | 3 | 2000–2003 |
| Francis v. Franklin green | 3 | 1993–1997 |
| Fahy v. Connecticut green | 3 | 1985–1989 |
| Ex Parte Griffin green | 2 | 2009–2014 |
| Davis v. Alabama green | 2 | 2010–2011 |
| Horvath v. Ohio State Teachers Retirement Board green | 2 | 2010–2011 |
| Ex Parte Davis green | 2 | 2010–2011 |
| Wilson v. State green | 2 | 2000–2003 |
| Hydrick v. Gomez neutral | 2 | 2000–2000 |
| Phillips Colleges of Alabama v. Lester green | 2 | 1997–1997 |
| Stewart v. State green | 2 | 1995–1997 |
| Ex Parte Stewart green | 2 | 1995–1997 |
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.
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.