witnesses error in Alabama

15 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2009 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Maund v. Stategreen ala · 1950 · cited in 5 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1985–2008 2 sentences 2008Those exceptional circumstances subsequently were defined by this Court in Maund v. State, 254 Ala. 452 , 48 So.2d 553 (1950). “ ‘ “[T]he overruling of a motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence tending only to discredit the State’s witnesses is not error unless upon the whole case it appears probable that the new evidence would change the result.” “ ‘Id., 254 Ala. at 462 , 48 So.2d at 562 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). “ ‘We recognize the existence of recent caselaw that seems to reject the exception for newly discovered cumulative or impeaching evidence that would p 2008Those exceptional circumstances subsequently were defined by this Court in Maund v. State, 254 Ala. 452 , 48 So.2d 553 (1950). “ ‘ “[T]he overruling of a motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence tending only to discredit the State’s witnesses is not error unless upon the whole case it appears probable that the new evidence would change the result.” “ ‘Id., 254 Ala. at 462 , 48 So.2d at 562 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). “ ‘We recognize the existence of recent caselaw that seems to reject the exception for newly discovered cumulative or impeaching evidence that would p	3	5
Isom v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., Isom v. State, 497 So.2d 208 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Baker v. State, 477 So.2d 496 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); and Bland v. State, 390 So.2d 1098 (Ala.Crim.App.1980). 2008See, e.g., Isom v. State, 497 So.2d 208 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Baker v. State, 477 So.2d 496 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); and Bland v. State, 390 So.2d 1098 (Ala.Crim.App.1980).	1	1
Dilbeck v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994App.1992) (appellant had three days to prepare a response to the admission of the victim’s out-of-court statement); Dilbeck v. State, 594 So.2d 168, 171-72 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991) (wherein the hearing to determine whether the child victim was unavailable was held four days before the trial and the appellants were able to cross-examine the witnesses at that hearing, thus giving them adequate notice).	1	1
Jesse Woodruff Jones v. Leonard R. Dugger, and Robert A. Butterworthgreen ca11 · 1989 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991See Jones v. Dugger , 888 F.2d 1340 (11th Cir. 1989); Fortner; Wright , ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at 3147 .	1	1
Gurganus v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990“Any doubt, vagueness, or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness [or witnesses] properly goes to the credibility of the witness and is thus a question for the [trier of fact].” Gurganus v. State, 520 So.2d 170, 173 (Ala.Cr.App.1987).	1	1
Davis v. Stategreen ala · 1944 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 2 sentences 1987See also Davis v. State , 245 Ala. 589 , 590 , 18 So.2d 282 (1944) ("Of course, the authorities are uniformly to the effect that it is not essential that newly discovered proof would likely have produced an acquittal. 1987See also Davis v. State , 245 Ala. 589 , 590 , 18 So.2d 282 (1944) ("Of course, the authorities are uniformly to the effect that it is not essential that newly discovered proof would likely have produced an acquittal.	1	1
Nichols v. Stategreen · 1958 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 2 sentences 1972See Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217 , 100 So.2d 750 , where Merrill, J., said: “The defendant complains that many questions propounded by the solicitor on cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses were error. 1972See Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217 , 100 So.2d 750 , where Merrill, J., said: “The defendant complains that many questions propounded by the solicitor on cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses were error.	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 (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Woods v. State green alacrimapp · 2004 1 sentence 2009Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the circuit court’s holding that Woods’s allegation did hot meet the specificity and full factual pleading requirements of Rule 32.6(b) was correct and adopted the circuit court’s findings that “Woods fail[ed] to identify any family member by name, proffer what their testimony would have been at’trial, or argue why such testimony would'have caused a different result at the penalty phase or at sentencing.” Id. “ ‘If the specificity and, factual pleading requirements of Rule 32.6(b) mean anything, ’ certainly they would require a postconviction petitio	1	2009–2009
Baker v. State green alacrimapp · 1985 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., Isom v. State, 497 So.2d 208 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Baker v. State, 477 So.2d 496 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); and Bland v. State, 390 So.2d 1098 (Ala.Crim.App.1980). 2008See, e.g., Isom v. State, 497 So.2d 208 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Baker v. State, 477 So.2d 496 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); and Bland v. State, 390 So.2d 1098 (Ala.Crim.App.1980).	1	2008–2008
Bland v. State green alacrimapp · 1980 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., Isom v. State, 497 So.2d 208 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Baker v. State, 477 So.2d 496 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); and Bland v. State, 390 So.2d 1098 (Ala.Crim.App.1980). 2008See, e.g., Isom v. State, 497 So.2d 208 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Baker v. State, 477 So.2d 496 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); and Bland v. State, 390 So.2d 1098 (Ala.Crim.App.1980).	1	2008–2008
Idaho v. Wright green scotus · 1990 1 sentence 1991See Jones v. Dugger , 888 F.2d 1340 (11th Cir. 1989); Fortner; Wright , ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at 3147 .	1	1991–1991
Slaughter v. State green ala · 1938 2 sentences 1987Ordinarily, impeaching or contradicting testimony is not such newly discovered evidence as will warrant the granting of a new trial "though there are exceptional instances where such proffered proof may justify a reconsideration of the cause." Slaughter v. State , 237 Ala. 26 , 27 , 185 So. 373 (1938). "[T]he overruling of a motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence tending only to discredit the State's witnesses is not error unless upon the whole case it appears probable that the new evidence would change the result." Maund v. State , 254 Ala. 452 , 462 , 48 So.2d 553 (1950) 1987Ordinarily, impeaching or contradicting testimony is not such newly discovered evidence as will warrant the granting of a new trial "though there are exceptional instances where such proffered proof may justify a reconsideration of the cause." Slaughter v. State , 237 Ala. 26 , 27 , 185 So. 373 (1938). "[T]he overruling of a motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence tending only to discredit the State's witnesses is not error unless upon the whole case it appears probable that the new evidence would change the result." Maund v. State , 254 Ala. 452 , 462 , 48 So.2d 553 (1950)	1	1987–1987
Anderson v. Southern Railway Co. neutral ala · 1913 2 sentences 1986Eleven years later, in Anderson v. Southern Railway Co. , 184 Ala. 468 , 469 , 63 So. 473 (1913), this Court reasoned that the Cobb standard was necessary because "the trial judge had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and hearing the evidence — [an opportunity] of which we are deprived," and so could exercise better judgment than an appellate court in determining whether to grant a new trial. 1986Eleven years later, in Anderson v. Southern Railway Co. , 184 Ala. 468 , 469 , 63 So. 473 (1913), this Court reasoned that the Cobb standard was necessary because "the trial judge had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and hearing the evidence — [an opportunity] of which we are deprived," and so could exercise better judgment than an appellate court in determining whether to grant a new trial.	1	1986–1986
Hatfield v. Riley green ala · 1916 2 sentences 1986In the case of Hatfield v. Riley , 199 Ala. 388 , 74 So. 380 (1917), the Cobb standard of review was tested against a 1915 legislative enactment that no presumption in favor of the correctness of a judgment granting or refusing a new trial should be indulged by the appellate courts. 1986In the case of Hatfield v. Riley , 199 Ala. 388 , 74 So. 380 (1917), the Cobb standard of review was tested against a 1915 legislative enactment that no presumption in favor of the correctness of a judgment granting or refusing a new trial should be indulged by the appellate courts.	1	1986–1986
Story v. State green alacrimapp · 1983 1 sentence 1985Appellant's Brief, p. 16. "[T]he overruling of a motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence tending only to discredit the State's witnesses is not error unless upon the whole case it appears probable that the new evidence would change the result." Maund v. State , 254 Ala. 452 , 462 , 48 So.2d 553 (1950); Story v. State , 439 So.2d 1317 , 1322 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).	1	1985–1985
Franklin v. State green · 1971 2 sentences 1973In the absence of the showing of any actual knowledge on the part of Appellant that the black calf was stolen, then there would be no reason that Appellant should know that the same was stolen in light of the prior use of this pen.” In Franklin v. State, 47 Ala.App. 62 , 249 So.2d 882 , this Court said: “Evidence that the property listed in the indictment has disappeared from where the owner left it without his knowledge or consent, together with evidence that the owner reported its disappearance to the police was sufficient for the jury to infer that the property was stolen. 1973In the absence of the showing of any actual knowledge on the part of Appellant that the black calf was stolen, then there would be no reason that Appellant should know that the same was stolen in light of the prior use of this pen.” In Franklin v. State, 47 Ala.App. 62 , 249 So.2d 882 , this Court said: “Evidence that the property listed in the indictment has disappeared from where the owner left it without his knowledge or consent, together with evidence that the owner reported its disappearance to the police was sufficient for the jury to infer that the property was stolen.	1	1973–1973
Hayes v. State neutral alactapp · 1950 1 sentence 1968“In its material aspects the evidence is not in dispute.” ( 35 Ala.App. at 224 , 45 So.2d at 330 .) • The Court of Appeals quoted at some length from Cobb v. Malone, supra, and said: “We are not unmindful of the rule which provides that because the trial judge saw and heard the witnesses a presumption is indulged in favor of his ruling in granting a motion for a new trial.	1	1968–1968
Riley v. Srofe neutral alactapp · 1950 1 sentence 1968“In its material aspects the evidence is not in dispute.” ( 35 Ala.App. at 224 , 45 So.2d at 330 .) • The Court of Appeals quoted at some length from Cobb v. Malone, supra, and said: “We are not unmindful of the rule which provides that because the trial judge saw and heard the witnesses a presumption is indulged in favor of his ruling in granting a motion for a new trial.	1	1968–1968
Cosby v. State green ala · 1918 2 sentences 1950Cosby v. State, 202 Ala. 419 , 80 So. 803 ; Scruggs v. State, 224 Ala. 328 , 140 So. 405 . 1950Cosby v. State, 202 Ala. 419 , 80 So. 803 ; Scruggs v. State, 224 Ala. 328 , 140 So. 405 .	1	1950–1950
Scruggs v. State neutral ala · 1932 2 sentences 1950Cosby v. State, 202 Ala. 419 , 80 So. 803 ; Scruggs v. State, 224 Ala. 328 , 140 So. 405 . 1950Cosby v. State, 202 Ala. 419 , 80 So. 803 ; Scruggs v. State, 224 Ala. 328 , 140 So. 405 .	1	1950–1950
Hackett v. Cash green ala · 1916 2 sentences 1929Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198 , 92 So. 171 ;. 1929Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198 , 92 So. 171 ;.	1	1929–1929
Hodge v. Joy green ala · 1921 2 sentences 1929Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198 , 92 So. 171 ;. 1929Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403 , 72 So. 52 ; Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198 , 92 So. 171 ;.	1	1929–1929

Where else courts name it

NY 171 (1959–2026) TX 79 (1879–2025) IL 50 (1896–2025) CA 18 (1920–2023) PA 17 (1914–2026) AL 15 (1929–2009) GA 13 (1921–2020) MI 13 (1936–2018) LA 13 (1926–2017) OH 12 (1970–2022) TN 12 (1975–2020) FL 12 (1962–2013) CT 11 (1933–2009) MO 11 (1889–2025) IA 10 (1906–2026) MT 10 (1929–1995) MS 9 (1980–2026) DC 9 (1976–2020) WI 8 (1934–2024) MD 8 (1926–2011) KS 8 (1909–2007) WA 8 (1894–2021) MA 6 (1962–2023) AR 6 (1960–2015) NJ 6 (1949–2020) IN 6 (1895–2016) OK 5 (1912–1969) RI 5 (1917–2010) OR 4 (1893–1994) MN 4 (1948–1993) WV 4 (1892–1991) KY 4 (1946–2017) VA 4 (1923–1998) NC 3 (1985–2006) UT 3 (1988–2019) NE 3 (1911–1928) ME 2 (1976–1977) WY 2 (2010–2016) ND 2 (1896–1990) DE 2 (1989–1992) SC 2 (1912–2019) HI 2 (1980–2008) AZ 2 (1985–2011)

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