18 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bowden v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Bowden, supra. See also Atkisson v. State, 640 So.2d 33, 38 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (holding evidence of collateral sexual offenses perpetrated by the defendant against his stepdaughter admissible under the motive exception in prosecution for first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse against his natural daughter). 1994The Court of Criminal Appeals, in making its holding, discussed this Court's opinion in Bowden v. State , 538 So.2d 1226 (Ala. 1988), and agreed with the defendant's argument *Page 678 that the principle of Bowden did not apply, because, it said, "the motive exception is not applicable to the present case, as this is not a situation involving incest": "Although in Bowden v. State , supra, the Alabama Supreme Court held that evidence of collateral offenses of rape or sexual abuse of one or more of a defendant's other children may be admissible to prove motive in raping the victim, who is also t | 3 | 4 |
Spicer v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Motive “Regarding the motive exception to Rule 404(b), [the Alabama Supreme] Court has stated: “ ‘ “Motive is an inducement, or that which leads or tempts the mind to do or commit the crime charged.” Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9, 26 , 65 So. 972, 977 (1914). 2015Motive “Regarding the motive exception to Rule 404(b), [the Alabama Supreme] Court has stated: “ ‘ “Motive is an inducement, or that which leads or tempts the mind to do or commit the crime charged.” Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9, 26 , 65 So. 972, 977 (1914). | 2 | 2 |
McClendon v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.200[1]) (upholding admission of accused’s collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused’s second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be c 2005See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (upholding admission of accused's collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused's second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be con | 2 | 2 |
Presley v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.200[1]) (upholding admission of accused’s collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused’s second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be c 2005See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (upholding admission of accused's collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused's second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be con | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Registergreen2 sentences2003BASCHAB, J., concurs specially, with opinion, which WISE, J., joins. 1 Two of Cooper's three adult children resided in the house with her. 2 Moore is African-American. 3 The State gave Moore advance notice that it intended to introduce the prior convictions at trial. 4 In Ex parte Register , 680 So.2d 225 (Ala. 1994), the Alabama Supreme Court, recognizing a trend toward liberalness in allowing collateral-act evidence in cases involving sex crimes, held that evidence of the defendant's prior sexual misconduct committed upon his natural daughter was properly admitted under the motive exception 2003BASCHAB, J., concurs specially, with opinion, which WISE, J., joins. 1 Two of Cooper's three adult children resided in the house with her. 2 Moore is African-American. 3 The State gave Moore advance notice that it intended to introduce the prior convictions at trial. 4 In Ex parte Register , 680 So.2d 225 (Ala. 1994), the Alabama Supreme Court, recognizing a trend toward liberalness in allowing collateral-act evidence in cases involving sex crimes, held that evidence of the defendant's prior sexual misconduct committed upon his natural daughter was properly admitted under the motive exception | 1 | 2 |
Perkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1084 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001), vacated on other ground, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Mason v. Stategreen2 sentences2014As Scott argues, "a motive to collect a homeowner's insurance claim from a house fire is not the same 9 1120563 guise of proving identity, namely, a novel or peculiar methodology unique to Scott, the State succeeded in presenting to the jury mere propensity evidence. "'But evidence of accused's commission of other offenses which does nothing more than indicate the accused's inclination or propensity to commit the type of crime charged is not admissible as tending to show identity.'" Mason v. State, 259 Ala. 438, 442 , 66 So. 2d 557, 560 (1953) (quoting Judge McElroy, The Law of Evidence in Ala 2014As Scott argues, "a motive to collect a homeowner's insurance claim from a house fire is not the same 9 1120563 guise of proving identity, namely, a novel or peculiar methodology unique to Scott, the State succeeded in presenting to the jury mere propensity evidence. "'But evidence of accused's commission of other offenses which does nothing more than indicate the accused's inclination or propensity to commit the type of crime charged is not admissible as tending to show identity.'" Mason v. State, 259 Ala. 438, 442 , 66 So. 2d 557, 560 (1953) (quoting Judge McElroy, The Law of Evidence in Ala | 1 | 1 |
Atkisson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Bowden, supra. See also Atkisson v. State, 640 So.2d 33, 38 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (holding evidence of collateral sexual offenses perpetrated by the defendant against his stepdaughter admissible under the motive exception in prosecution for first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse against his natural daughter). | 1 | 1 |
Giddens v. Stategreen1 sentence1993See also Giddens v. State, 565 So.2d 1277, 1280-81 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (evidence that checks had been returned for insufficient funds was held admissible pursuant to the motive exception to the exclusionary rule in a case charging the misappropriation of an employer's funds). | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Stategreen1 sentence1990See also Watson v. State , 538 So.2d 1216 , 1223 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987) ("Moreover, since this evidence of prior sexual acts with the victim is characterized as evidence of motive, . . . , the Anonymous court implicitly has rejected the proposition, . . . that evidence of motive, even though motive is not an element of the crime, is always admissible."), affirmed, Bowden v. State , 538 So.2d 1226 , 1234-35 (Ala. 1988) (see also the opinion of Maddox, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, 538 So.2d at 123940). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
JDS v. State
green
2 sentences1994Thus, the Alabama Supreme Court stated, 'However, where the defendant is not charged with the offense of incest , . . . it becomes questionable whether evidence establishing that the accused raped and/or sexually abused one or more of his other children is admissible to prove his motive in raping the victim, also his child.' [ 538 So.2d at 1235 .] (Emphasis in original.) "In J.D.S. v. State , 587 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), this motive exception was extended to apply to collateral offenses against members of a defendant's family who would fall within the statutory definition of victims of i 1994Thus, the Alabama Supreme Court stated, 'However, where the defendant is not charged with the offense of incest , . . . it becomes questionable whether evidence establishing that the accused raped and/or sexually abused one or more of his other children is admissible to prove his motive in raping the victim, also his child.' [ 538 So.2d at 1235 .] (Emphasis in original.) "In J.D.S. v. State , 587 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), this motive exception was extended to apply to collateral offenses against members of a defendant's family who would fall within the statutory definition of victims of i | 4 | 1992–1994 |
Bedsole v. State
green
2 sentences2014Specifically, the State cites Bedsole v. State, 974 So.2d 1034 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), arguing that the assaults on Cameron ‘tended to show that Towles was motivated to physically beat or assault children for disciplinary problems,’ particularly those disciplinary problems that occur at school. 2013The State argues on appeal that Cameron’s testimony was admissible, and therefore properly considered by the jury, under the motive exception to the exclusionary rule. 3 Specifically, the State cites Bedsole v. State, 974 So.2d 1034 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), arguing that the assaults on Cameron “tended to show that Towles was motivated to physically beat or assault children for disciplinary problems,” particularly those disciplinary problems that occur at school. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Mosley v. United States
green
2 sentences2009See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.200[1]) (upholding admission of accused’s collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused’s second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be c 2005See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (upholding admission of accused's collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused's second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be con | 2 | 2005–2009 |
LaFlamme v. Hubbard
green
2 sentences2009See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.200[1]) (upholding admission of accused’s collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused’s second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be c 2005See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (upholding admission of accused's collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused's second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be con | 2 | 2005–2009 |
Thomas v. Wetherington
green
2 sentences2009See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.200[1]) (upholding admission of accused’s collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused’s second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be c 2005See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (upholding admission of accused's collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused's second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be con | 2 | 2005–2009 |
Ex Parte Presley
green
2 sentences2009See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.200[1]) (upholding admission of accused’s collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused’s second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be c 2005See McClendon v. State, 813 So.2d 936, 944 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (upholding admission of accused's collateral act of soliciting someone to murder his first wife as relevant to prove intent and motive in prosecution for soliciting murder of accused's second wife); Presley v. State, 770 So.2d 104, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 770 So.2d 114 (Ala.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 881 , 121 S.Ct. 194 , 148 L.Ed.2d 135 (2000) (upholding admission of collateral-act evidence of other robberies to show intent and motive when defendant argued that because he did not intend to rob the victim he could not be con | 2 | 2005–2009 |
Ex Parte Perkins
green
1 sentence2016Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1084 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001), vacated on other ground, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Allen v. United States
green
1 sentence2016Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1084 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001), vacated on other ground, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Perkins v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2016Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1084 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001), vacated on other ground, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ex Parte Jackson
green
1 sentence2014Ex parte Jackson, supra. 2 *145 Having determined that Cameron’s testimony was admissible under the motive exception to Rule 404(b), Ala. R. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Register v. State
green
1 sentence1994However, the Court of Criminal Appeals noted that "[t]he fact that the prosecutor gave an erroneous reason in arguing for the admissibility of the evidence is unimportant when there is, in fact, a valid reason for admissibility." The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that "[t]he only exception under which L.R.'s testimony was admissible is the motive exception," and that "testimony offered for the purpose of showing motive is always admissible . . . to show that there was an influence, an inducement, operating on the accused, which may have led or tempted him to commit the offense." 640 So. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Donahoo v. State
green
2 sentences1993Id. 1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Anonymous v. State
green
1 sentence1990The intent of the murderer was not a "real and open" issue, see Anonymous v. State , 507 So.2d 972 , 975 (Ala. 1987), because criminal intent could have been inferred by the jury from the manner in which Schoettlin was killed and in which her body was disposed of. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences1988"If the accused had a predilection to deviant sexual practices with young female relatives, it would not be unreasonable for the trier of fact to determine that he had a motive to commit the acts complained of by the victim in this case." 736 P.2d at 1113 . 1988"If the accused had a predilection to deviant sexual practices with young female relatives, it would not be unreasonable for the trier of fact to determine that he had a motive to commit the acts complained of by the victim in this case." 736 P.2d at 1113 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ex Parte Cofer
green
2 sentences1988I believe the majority's interpretations of Anonymous and Ex parte Cofer , 440 So.2d 1121 (Ala. 1983), limit too severely the motive exception to the general exclusionary rule, and that the opinion is an unwarranted and unwise limitation of Lee . 1988I believe the majority's interpretations of Anonymous and Ex parte Cofer, 440 So.2d 1121 (Ala.1983), limit too severely the motive exception to the general exclusionary rule, and that the opinion is an unwarranted and unwise limitation of Lee . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.