safe rule in Alabama

2026In Ex parte Sloane, 95 Ala. 22, 24 , 11 So. 14 , 15 (1892), this Court once again cited Ex parte Bryant in holding that the denial of bail in a capital case had to be based on evidence, and the Court specifically provided the following rule for use in a bail hearing: "It is held in this State, as a safe rule by which the question of bail must be determined, that when a malicious homicide is charged, to refuse bail in all cases where a judge would sustain a capital conviction, if pronounced by a jury, on such evidence of guilt as was exhibited to him on the hearing of the application to admit t

2026For example, in Ex parte Sloane, 95 Ala. 22, 24 , 11 So. 14 , 15 (1892), this Court stated: 55 SC-2025-0172 and SC-2025-0279 "It is held in this State, as a safe rule by which the question of bail must be determined, that when a malicious homicide is charged, to refuse bail in all cases where a judge would sustain a capital conviction, if pronounced by a jury, on such evidence of guilt as was exhibited to him on the hearing of the application to admit to bail; and in instances where the evidence is of less efficacy, to admit to bail." However, concluding that the evidence is sufficient to sust

2026If the answer to the foregoing question is YES then the defendant is not entitled to bond[;] if the answer is NO then bond should be granted. " 'A safe rule for a trial court to follow "is to deny bail if the court could sustain a capital conviction by a jury based on the same evidence taken at the hearing seeking bail; and to allow bail if the evidence is not so efficacious." Webb v. State, 35 Ala. App. 575, 576 , 50 So. 2d 451, 452 (1951); Roddam v. State, 33 Ala. App. 356 , 33 So. 2d 384 (1948).' "In this case it is clear the defendant has the burden to overcome the presumption for purposes

2026If the answer to the foregoing question is YES then the defendant is not entitled to bond[;] if the answer is NO then bond should be granted. " 'A safe rule for a trial court to follow "is to deny bail if the court could sustain a capital conviction by a jury based on the same evidence taken at the hearing seeking bail; and to allow bail if the evidence is not so efficacious." Webb v. State, 35 Ala. App. 575, 576 , 50 So. 2d 451, 452 (1951); Roddam v. State, 33 Ala. App. 356 , 33 So. 2d 384 (1948).' "In this case it is clear the defendant has the burden to overcome the presumption for purposes

1951Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268 ; Ex parte Brown, 65 Ala. 446 ; Ex parte Sloane, 95 Ala. 22 , 11 So. 14 ; Earnest v. State, 21 Ala.App. 534 , 109 So. 613 .” This seems to sufficiently outline the rule by which the appellate courts must be guided in matters of instant concern.

1949Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268 ; Ex parte Brown, 65 Ala. 446 ; Ex parte Sloane, 95 Ala. 22, 11 .

2026A safe rule for a trial court to follow 'is to deny bail if the court could sustain a capital conviction by a jury based on the same evidence taken at the hearing seeking bail; and to allow bail if the evidence is not so efficacious.' Webb v. State, 35 Ala. App. 575, 576 , 50 So. 2d 451, 452 (1951); Roddam v. State, 33 Ala. App. 356 , 33 So. 2d 384 (1948)." Ex parte Patel, 879 So. 2d at 533-34 .

2026A safe rule for a trial court to follow 'is to deny bail if the court could sustain a capital conviction by a jury based on the same evidence taken at the hearing seeking bail; and to allow bail if the evidence is not so efficacious.' Webb v. State, 35 Ala. App. 575, 576 , 50 So. 2d 451, 452 (1951); Roddam v. State, 33 Ala. App. 356 , 33 So. 2d 384 (1948)." Ex parte Patel, 879 So. 2d at 533-34 .

1951Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268 ; Ex parte Brown, 65 Ala. 446 ; Ex parte Sloane, 95 Ala. 22 , 11 So. 14 ; Earnest v. State, 21 Ala.App. 534 , 109 So. 613 .” This seems to sufficiently outline the rule by which the appellate courts must be guided in matters of instant concern.

1951Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268 ; Ex parte Brown, 65 Ala. 446 ; Ex parte Sloane, 95 Ala. 22 , 11 So. 14 ; Earnest v. State, 21 Ala.App. 534 , 109 So. 613 .” This seems to sufficiently outline the rule by which the appellate courts must be guided in matters of instant concern.

2026See Ex parte Weaver, 55 Ala. 250, 251 (1876) (noting that the defendant had been indicted for murder but holding that the State had presented evidence in the bail hearing that tended to "make[] a case of 'evident proof,' within the letter of the constitution, and which denies to defendant the privilege of bail"); Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268, 276 (1877) ("Under one phase of the testimony, the presumption was great that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree." (emphasis added)); Ex parte Richardson, 96 Ala. 110, 110 , 11 So. 316 , 316 (1892) (noting that, following an indictmen

2026See Ex parte Weaver, 55 Ala. 250, 251 (1876) (noting that the defendant had been indicted for murder but holding that the State had presented evidence in the bail hearing that tended to "make[] a case of 'evident proof,' within the letter of the constitution, and which denies to defendant the privilege of bail"); Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268, 276 (1877) ("Under one phase of the testimony, the presumption was great that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree." (emphasis added)); Ex parte Richardson, 96 Ala. 110, 110 , 11 So. 316 , 316 (1892) (noting that, following an indictmen

2026See Ex parte Weaver, 55 Ala. 250, 251 (1876) (noting that the defendant had been indicted for murder but holding that the State had presented evidence in the bail hearing that tended to "make[] a case of 'evident proof,' within the letter of the constitution, and which denies to defendant the privilege of bail"); Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268, 276 (1877) ("Under one phase of the testimony, the presumption was great that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree." (emphasis added)); Ex parte Richardson, 96 Ala. 110, 110 , 11 So. 316 , 316 (1892) (noting that, following an indictmen

2026See Ex parte Weaver, 55 Ala. 250, 251 (1876) (noting that the defendant had been indicted for murder but holding that the State had presented evidence in the bail hearing that tended to "make[] a case of 'evident proof,' within the letter of the constitution, and which denies to defendant the privilege of bail"); Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268, 276 (1877) ("Under one phase of the testimony, the presumption was great that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree." (emphasis added)); Ex parte Richardson, 96 Ala. 110, 110 , 11 So. 316 , 316 (1892) (noting that, following an indictmen

2026The trial court cites and purports to quote the following excerpt from our Court's decision in Webb v. State, 35 Ala. App. 575, 576 , 50 So. 2d 451, 452 (1951), for this "could" standard: " 'By a long line of authorities it has been held that a safe rule to follow is to deny bail if the court could sustain a capital conviction by a jury based on the same evidence taken at the hearing seeking bail; and to allow bail if the evidence is not so efficacious.' " (quoting of Turner v. State, 32 Ala. App. 465, 466 , 27 So. 2d 239, 240 (1946)) (emphasis added).

2026The trial court cites and purports to quote the following excerpt from our Court's decision in Webb v. State, 35 Ala. App. 575, 576 , 50 So. 2d 451, 452 (1951), for this "could" standard: " 'By a long line of authorities it has been held that a safe rule to follow is to deny bail if the court could sustain a capital conviction by a jury based on the same evidence taken at the hearing seeking bail; and to allow bail if the evidence is not so efficacious.' " (quoting of Turner v. State, 32 Ala. App. 465, 466 , 27 So. 2d 239, 240 (1946)) (emphasis added).

1985"The safe rule for trial judges or courts to follow is to grant the writ and dispose of the case finally upon the return to the writ unless it is very clear from the petition that petitioner is not entitled to the writ." Ex parte Rockholt , 271 Ala. 68 , 70 , 122 So.2d 162 (1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 935 , 81 S.Ct. 384 , 5 L.Ed.2d 368 (1961).

1985"The safe rule for trial judges or courts to follow is to grant the writ and dispose of the case finally upon the return to the writ unless it is very clear from the petition that petitioner is not entitled to the writ." Ex parte Rockholt , 271 Ala. 68 , 70 , 122 So.2d 162 (1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 935 , 81 S.Ct. 384 , 5 L.Ed.2d 368 (1961).

1985"The safe rule for trial judges or courts to follow is to grant the writ and dispose of the case finally upon the return to the writ unless it is very clear from the petition that petitioner is not entitled to the writ." Ex parte Rockholt , 271 Ala. 68 , 70 , 122 So.2d 162 (1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 935 , 81 S.Ct. 384 , 5 L.Ed.2d 368 (1961).

1983We are not unmindful of the prevailing practice in the last few decades of resolving any doubt in favor of petitioner as to whether the petition for writ of habeas corpus presented valid grounds for relief and consequently requiring a return so that the court could determine from the issues and any evidence presented at the time of a hearing whether petitioner was entitled to discharge or release from his imprisonment or detention, which practice was prompted chiefly perhaps by suggestion of the Alabama Supreme Court, by Justice Lawson, in Ex parte Rockholt, 271 Ala. 68 , 122 So.2d 162 , cert.

1983Robertson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 514 , 104 So. 561 ; The Law of Habeas Corpus in Alabama by Judge Walter B.

1983Robertson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 514 , 104 So. 561 ; The Law of Habeas Corpus in Alabama by Judge Walter B.

2003Alabama appellate courts have stated that "where bail has been refused by the primary magistrate on oral evidence, the appellate court will not interfere, unless such denial appears from the record to have been manifestly erroneous." Roan, 24 Ala.App. at 517 , 137 So. at 321 . [1] The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized a presumption of guilt "`"[w]here one is imprisoned [for a capital offense] by virtue of an indictment."'" Landers, 690 So.2d at 538 (quoting Burks v. State, 600 So.2d 374, 381 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), quoting in turn Livingston v. State, 40 Ala.App. 376, 377 , 116 So

2003Alabama appellate courts have stated that "where bail has been refused by the primary magistrate on oral evidence, the appellate court will not interfere, unless such denial appears from the record to have been manifestly erroneous." Roan, 24 Ala.App. at 517 , 137 So. at 321 . [1] The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized a presumption of guilt "`"[w]here one is imprisoned [for a capital offense] by virtue of an indictment."'" Landers, 690 So.2d at 538 (quoting Burks v. State, 600 So.2d 374, 381 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), quoting in turn Livingston v. State, 40 Ala.App. 376, 377 , 116 So

2003Alabama appellate courts have stated that "where bail has been refused by the primary magistrate on oral evidence, the appellate court will not interfere, unless such denial appears from the record to have been manifestly erroneous." Roan, 24 Ala.App. at 517 , 137 So. at 321 . [1] The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized a presumption of guilt "`"[w]here one is imprisoned [for a capital offense] by virtue of an indictment."'" Landers, 690 So.2d at 538 (quoting Burks v. State, 600 So.2d 374, 381 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), quoting in turn Livingston v. State, 40 Ala.App. 376, 377 , 116 So

1985The trial judge denied the habeas corpus petition with the comment: "Well, in view of the fact that there is a case directly in point on your case and that is your own appeal in which the judgment of this Court was affirmed, I see no reason to grant this petition." In Swann v. City of Huntsville , supra, the issue of jurisdiction was not presented.

1973In Mitchell v. State, 248 Ala. 169 , 27 So.2d 36 (1946) this court stated: “It is conceded by the state that the indictment in the case at bar is drawn pursuant to § 103, Title 14, Code of 1940., There is a line of cases in this state which declares the general rule that an • indictment which substantially follows the language of the statute is sufficient.

1973In Mitchell v. State, 248 Ala. 169 , 27 So.2d 36 (1946) this court stated: “It is conceded by the state that the indictment in the case at bar is drawn pursuant to § 103, Title 14, Code of 1940., There is a line of cases in this state which declares the general rule that an • indictment which substantially follows the language of the statute is sufficient.

1960Attorney General v. Speake, 187 Ala. 426 , 65 So. 840 ; Ex parte Thomas, supra. *70 The safe rule for trial judges or courts to follow is to grant the writ and dispose of the case finally upon the return to the writ unless it is very clear from the petition that petitioner is not entitled to the writ.

1960Attorney General v. Speake, 187 Ala. 426 , 65 So. 840 ; Ex parte Thomas, supra. *70 The safe rule for trial judges or courts to follow is to grant the writ and dispose of the case finally upon the return to the writ unless it is very clear from the petition that petitioner is not entitled to the writ.

1948See also, Ex parte King, 86 Ala. 620 , 5 So. 863 ; Franks v. State, 11 Ala.App. 70 , 65 So. 857 ; Griswold v. State, 31 Ala.App. 583 , 20 So.2d 54 .

1948See also, Ex parte King, 86 Ala. 620 , 5 So. 863 ; Franks v. State, 11 Ala.App. 70 , 65 So. 857 ; Griswold v. State, 31 Ala.App. 583 , 20 So.2d 54 .

1948See also, Ex parte King, 86 Ala. 620 , 5 So. 863 ; Franks v. State, 11 Ala.App. 70 , 65 So. 857 ; Griswold v. State, 31 Ala.App. 583 , 20 So.2d 54 .

1948See also, Ex parte King, 86 Ala. 620 , 5 So. 863 ; Franks v. State, 11 Ala.App. 70 , 65 So. 857 ; Griswold v. State, 31 Ala.App. 583 , 20 So.2d 54 .

1924Co., 60 Pa. Super. 37 , a car taken into a building subsequently backed into an open elevator shaft and dropped to the ground floor.

1882Where a purchaser of personal property, who has paid the price in advance, brings an action for the breach of a special contract to deliver, the measure of damages is the value of the property, or article at the time and place of delivery.-Rose's Ex 'r v. Bozeman, 41 Ala. 678 ; McGehee v. Posey, 42 Ala. 330 ; Sedgw. on Dam. (7th Ed.) 580-81 [274-5].

1882Where a purchaser of personal property, who has paid the price in advance, brings an action for the breach of a special contract to deliver, the measure of damages is the value of the property, or article at the time and place of delivery.-Rose's Ex 'r v. Bozeman, 41 Ala. 678 ; McGehee v. Posey, 42 Ala. 330 ; Sedgw. on Dam. (7th Ed.) 580-81 [274-5].

1880As said by Story, J., in the case of The Apollos, 9 Wheaton, 362 , “ they must always be restricted, in construction, to places and persons upon whom the legislature have authority and jurisdiction.” It is a safe principle, perhaps, to be asserted, that a crime committed in a foreign country, and in violation of the laws thereof, can not, by mere legislative fiction or construction, be constituted an offense in another country.