record shows defense in Alabama

2008As we stated in Calhoun v. State, 932 So.2d 923 (Ala. Crim.App.2005): "The Alabama Supreme Court in Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hospital, 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002), returned to the harmless-error analysis when reviewing a circuit court's refusal to remove a prospective juror for cause.

2008As we stated in Calhoun v. State, 932 So.2d 923 (Ala. Crim.App.2005): "The Alabama Supreme Court in Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hospital, 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002), returned to the harmless-error analysis when reviewing a circuit court's refusal to remove a prospective juror for cause.

1994However, the defense did not object to the testimony when Saxton testified at trial. *Page 586 "A party who suffers an adverse ruling on a motion in limine can preserve the ruling for post-judgment and appellate review only by objecting to the introduction of the proffered evidence and assigning specific grounds at the time of trial, unless he or she obtains the express acquiescence of the trial judge that a subsequent objection and assignment of grounds are not necessary." Parks v. State , 587 So.2d 1012 , 1015 (Ala. 1991) (emphasis in the original).

1993We agree that the record on appeal did not contain a specific objection to consolidation; however, the Court of Criminal Appeals wrote: "A close reading of the record shows that a hearing was held on the consolidation motion, and that [Graves's] counsel opposed the motion on the ground now asserted on appeal [which was that the consolidation prejudiced Graves by allowing the State to introduce evidence of his prior conviction to prove the unlawful possession, even though that evidence would have been inadmissible in the murder trial]." 632 So.2d at 31 .

1990The record shows that defense counsel filed a motion for new trial alleging a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

1990The record shows that defense counsel filed a motion for new trial alleging a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

1990Alabama Power Co. v. Tatum , 293 Ala. 500 , 306 So.2d 251 (1975). *Page 161 A review of the record shows that defense counsel admitted that this was a correct statement of the law, but contended that there was no testimony on this point.

1990Alabama Power Co. v. Tatum , 293 Ala. 500 , 306 So.2d 251 (1975). *Page 161 A review of the record shows that defense counsel admitted that this was a correct statement of the law, but contended that there was no testimony on this point.

1990The record shows that a hearing was conducted for the trial court to hear evidence pursuant to Hammond , supra. Hammond requires only that the trial court "reflect in the record the reason for interfering with a jury verdict, or refusing to do so, on grounds of excessiveness of the damages." 493 So.2d at 1379 .

1990The record shows that a hearing was conducted for the trial court to hear evidence pursuant to Hammond , supra. Hammond requires only that the trial court "reflect in the record the reason for interfering with a jury verdict, or refusing to do so, on grounds of excessiveness of the damages." 493 So.2d at 1379 .

1987We stated the general rule in Wilson v. State , 417 So.2d 627 , 628 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), that "an arrest of the probationer, either on a warrant of arrest issued by the court or a written statement by a probation officer, is a prerequisite to revocation of probation." In the instant case, the record shows that this requirement was met, for the order of the court revoking probation recites that "a written report or written statement of the arrest and the alleged violation of defendant's probation was made and served on the defendant in the Walker County Jail and a copy given to his attorney befo

1986In overruling the motion for a continuance, the trial judge stated: "Since he was contacted by the defendant and we sent on attachment for him, he was subpoenaed, and doggone, if he's not going to show up for his own brother's trial then — I can understand the problem, but we've had testimony [from Tracy Goodwin] consistent with his so I'm going to overrule the motion for a continuance at this time." The general rule is that "[a] movant [for a continuance] must show that due diligence has been exercised to obtain the attendance of the witness, that substantial favorable testimony would be tend

1982Code of Alabama, 1975, Sec. 15-21-17; Bradley v. State, 274 Ala. 504 , 149 So.2d 779 ; Pendry v. Shows, 87 Ala. 339 , 6 So. 341 .

1982Code of Alabama, 1975, Sec. 15-21-17; Bradley v. State, 274 Ala. 504 , 149 So.2d 779 ; Pendry v. Shows, 87 Ala. 339 , 6 So. 341 .

1982Code of Alabama, 1975, Sec. 15-21-17; Bradley v. State, 274 Ala. 504 , 149 So.2d 779 ; Pendry v. Shows, 87 Ala. 339 , 6 So. 341 .

1981Such an announcement precludes our review of the alleged error. *720 Guice v. State, 380 So.2d 404 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Zuck v. State, 331 So.2d 777 (Ala.Cr.

1981Such an announcement precludes our review of the alleged error. *720 Guice v. State, 380 So.2d 404 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Zuck v. State, 331 So.2d 777 (Ala.Cr.

1961Mahone v. Birmingham Electric Co., 261 Ala. 132 , 73 So.2d 378 .

1961Mahone v. Birmingham Electric Co., 261 Ala. 132 , 73 So.2d 378 .

1914This is the essential and material matter to be brought out in laying a predicate for the impeachment of a witness by showing prior contradictory or inconsistent statements, and when this is done the rule for laying a foundation for the introduction of the impeaching testimony is substantially complied with. — 40 Cyc. 2731; Nelson v. Iverson, 24 Ala. 9 , 60 Am.

1914But it is not necessary for us to decide whether the record shows error in this part of the case or not, because the judgment must be reversed on other grounds!’ Another "case is that of Duncan v. State, 88 Ala. 31 , 7 South. 101 , in which such evidence was held admissible.