Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Watkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2008R.L.G. v. State, 712 So.2d at 355 (quoting R.A.S. v. State, 718 So.2d at 114 , quoting in turn Sparrow v. State, 606 So.2d 219 220-21 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), quoting in turn Watkins v. State, 36 Ala.App. 711, 711 , 63 So.2d 293, 293-94 (1953)). “ ‘ “ ‘The doctrine of election operates to protect a defendant from being prosecuted for more than one offense in the same count of an indictment.’ ” ’ ” Id. 2008R.L.G. v. State, 712 So.2d at 355 (quoting R.A.S. v. State, 718 So.2d at 114 , quoting in turn Sparrow v. State, 606 So.2d 219 220-21 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), quoting in turn Watkins v. State, 36 Ala.App. 711, 711 , 63 So.2d 293, 293-94 (1953)). “ ‘ “ ‘The doctrine of election operates to protect a defendant from being prosecuted for more than one offense in the same count of an indictment.’ ” ’ ” Id. | 7 | 13 |
Sparrow v. Stategreen2 sentences2008R.L.G. v. State, 712 So.2d at 355 (quoting R.A.S. v. State, 718 So.2d at 114 , quoting in turn Sparrow v. State, 606 So.2d 219 220-21 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), quoting in turn Watkins v. State, 36 Ala.App. 711, 711 , 63 So.2d 293, 293-94 (1953)). “ ‘ “ ‘The doctrine of election operates to protect a defendant from being prosecuted for more than one offense in the same count of an indictment.’ ” ’ ” Id. 2004Where the evidence discloses two or more offenses growing out of distinct and separate transactions, a court should grant a timely motion to require the State to elect." "` Watkins v. State , 36 Ala.App. 711 , 63 So.2d 293 , 293-94 (1953). "`"The need for election arises where there is but one count charging a single offense, but the proof shows more than one instance of that offense. *Page 473 The cases of Deason v. State , 363 So.2d 1001 (Ala. 1978), and Reed v. State , 512 So.2d 804 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), stand for the proposition that when the State has charged the accused with one offense in | 1 | 2 |
R.L.G. v. Stategreen2 sentences2008However, R.L.G. held that the strict election rule does not apply in cases involving generic evidence 4 and resident child molesters. “[T]he general election rule ... does not apply in child molestation cases involving purely generic evidence. ... “ ‘... [W]e adopt for purposes of this case, the “either/or” rule, but only as that rule is modified for generic evidence: where the evidence of more than one incident of sexual molestation to a child victim by a resident child molester is purely generic and where “there is no reasonable likelihood of juror disagreement as to particular acts, and the 2008R.L.G. v. State, 712 So.2d at 355 (quoting R.A.S. v. State, 718 So.2d at 114 , quoting in turn Sparrow v. State, 606 So.2d 219 220-21 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), quoting in turn Watkins v. State, 36 Ala.App. 711, 711 , 63 So.2d 293, 293-94 (1953)). “ ‘ “ ‘The doctrine of election operates to protect a defendant from being prosecuted for more than one offense in the same count of an indictment.’ ” ’ ” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Deason v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Where the evidence discloses two or more offenses growing out of distinct and separate transactions, a court should grant a timely motion to require the State to elect.'" 363 So.2d at 1006. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Deason v. State
green
2 sentences2004Where the evidence discloses two or more offenses growing out of distinct and separate transactions, a court should grant a timely motion to require the State to elect." "` Watkins v. State , 36 Ala.App. 711 , 63 So.2d 293 , 293-94 (1953). "`"The need for election arises where there is but one count charging a single offense, but the proof shows more than one instance of that offense. *Page 473 The cases of Deason v. State , 363 So.2d 1001 (Ala. 1978), and Reed v. State , 512 So.2d 804 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), stand for the proposition that when the State has charged the accused with one offense in 1982The rule requiring the state to elect appears in Deason v. State , 363 So.2d 1001 (Ala. 1978), as follows: "The doctrine of election operates to protect a defendant from being prosecuted for more than one offense in the same count of an indictment. | 6 | 1982–2004 |
R.A.S. v. State
neutral
2 sentences2008R.L.G. v. State, 712 So.2d at 355 (quoting R.A.S. v. State, 718 So.2d at 114 , quoting in turn Sparrow v. State, 606 So.2d 219 220-21 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), quoting in turn Watkins v. State, 36 Ala.App. 711, 711 , 63 So.2d 293, 293-94 (1953)). “ ‘ “ ‘The doctrine of election operates to protect a defendant from being prosecuted for more than one offense in the same count of an indictment.’ ” ’ ” Id. 2004In R.A.S. v. State , 718 So.2d 108 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997), aff'd, 718 So.2d 117 (Ala. 1998), this Court addressed the general rule concerning the doctrine of election: "`"The doctrine of election operates to protect a defendant from being prosecuted for more than one offense in the same count of an indictment. | 2 | 2004–2008 |
Ex Parte RLG
green
1 sentence2008However, R.L.G. held that the strict election rule does not apply in cases involving generic evidence 4 and resident child molesters. “[T]he general election rule ... does not apply in child molestation cases involving purely generic evidence. ... “ ‘... [W]e adopt for purposes of this case, the “either/or” rule, but only as that rule is modified for generic evidence: where the evidence of more than one incident of sexual molestation to a child victim by a resident child molester is purely generic and where “there is no reasonable likelihood of juror disagreement as to particular acts, and the | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Reed v. State
green
1 sentence2004Where the evidence discloses two or more offenses growing out of distinct and separate transactions, a court should grant a timely motion to require the State to elect." "` Watkins v. State , 36 Ala.App. 711 , 63 So.2d 293 , 293-94 (1953). "`"The need for election arises where there is but one count charging a single offense, but the proof shows more than one instance of that offense. *Page 473 The cases of Deason v. State , 363 So.2d 1001 (Ala. 1978), and Reed v. State , 512 So.2d 804 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), stand for the proposition that when the State has charged the accused with one offense in | 1 | 2004–2004 |
J.D.S. v. State
green
1 sentence2004Where the evidence discloses two or more offenses growing out of distinct and separate transactions, a court should grant a timely motion to require the State to elect." "` Watkins v. State , 36 Ala.App. 711 , 63 So.2d 293 , 293-94 (1953). "`"The need for election arises where there is but one count charging a single offense, but the proof shows more than one instance of that offense. *Page 473 The cases of Deason v. State , 363 So.2d 1001 (Ala. 1978), and Reed v. State , 512 So.2d 804 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), stand for the proposition that when the State has charged the accused with one offense in | 1 | 2004–2004 |
R.A.S. v. State
green
1 sentence2004In R.A.S. v. State , 718 So.2d 108 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997), aff'd, 718 So.2d 117 (Ala. 1998), this Court addressed the general rule concerning the doctrine of election: "`"The doctrine of election operates to protect a defendant from being prosecuted for more than one offense in the same count of an indictment. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ex Parte Madison
green
1 sentence2000Cf. Ex parte Madison , 718 So.2d 104 (Ala. 1998). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.