predicate error in Alabama

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). " 'Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ; Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2001Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987). "`Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981); Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 , 101 S.Ct. 3085 , 69 L.Ed.2d 955 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992).

2001Smelcher v. State , 520 So.2d 229 , 233 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987). "`Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done.' Jolly v. State , 405 So.2d 76 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981); Watson v. State , 398 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980), writ denied, 398 So.2d 332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 941 , 101 S.Ct. 3085 , 69 L.Ed.2d 955 (1981)." Owens v. State , 597 So.2d 734 , 736 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992).

1993A motion to exclude may not properly be made a predicate for error "in the absence of seasonable objections and exceptions." Copeland v. State , 252 Ala. 399 , 402 , 41 So.2d 390 , 393 (1949).

1993A motion to exclude may not properly be made a predicate for error "in the absence of seasonable objections and exceptions." Copeland v. State , 252 Ala. 399 , 402 , 41 So.2d 390 , 393 (1949).

1990Appellant argues that Phillips's hypnotically enhanced testimony should not have been admitted because, he argues, the state "failed to lay a predicate assuring the reliability of the procedure and the result." He argues that, pursuant to Prewitt v. State , 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), admissibility of hypnosis-related evidence requires laying a predicate under the test of Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

1990Appellant argues that Phillips's hypnotically enhanced testimony should not have been admitted because, he argues, the state "failed to lay a predicate assuring the reliability of the procedure and the result." He argues that, pursuant to Prewitt v. State , 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), admissibility of hypnosis-related evidence requires laying a predicate under the test of Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

1983Those instructions "became the law of the case by which the jury was bound, and even had the instruction been erroneous, . . . the matter could not be made a predicate for error by first taking notice thereof on a motion for a *Page 1278 new trial." Loch Ridge Construction Co., Inc. v. Barra , 291 Ala. 312 , 320 , 280 So.2d 745 , 751 (1973).

1983Those instructions "became the law of the case by which the jury was bound, and even had the instruction been erroneous, . . . the matter could not be made a predicate for error by first taking notice thereof on a motion for a *Page 1278 new trial." Loch Ridge Construction Co., Inc. v. Barra , 291 Ala. 312 , 320 , 280 So.2d 745 , 751 (1973).

1949McCalman v. State, 96 Ala. 98 , 11 So. 408 ; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Chastain, 158 Ala. 421, 429 , 48 So. 85 ; St.

1949McCalman v. State, 96 Ala. 98 , 11 So. 408 ; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Chastain, 158 Ala. 421, 429 , 48 So. 85 ; St.

1949McCalman v. State, 96 Ala. 98 , 11 So. 408 ; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Chastain, 158 Ala. 421, 429 , 48 So. 85 ; St.

1949Proof of such-damages was made in support of this theory and the court, without any exception on the part of the defendant, charged the jury that “in the third count the measure of damages would be the reasonable market value of what is proven to be taken by this trespass * * * the reasonable market value of the goods or timber *• * * at the time of the taking.” This instruction to the jury and the evidence adduced under such a theory, to which the defendant assented by his silence, was the law of the case and by which thu jury was bound, Dodd v. State, 251 Ala 130, 36 So.2d 474 ; Coffee Count

1949Proof of such-damages was made in support of this theory and the court, without any exception on the part of the defendant, charged the jury that “in the third count the measure of damages would be the reasonable market value of what is proven to be taken by this trespass * * * the reasonable market value of the goods or timber *• * * at the time of the taking.” This instruction to the jury and the evidence adduced under such a theory, to which the defendant assented by his silence, was the law of the case and by which thu jury was bound, Dodd v. State, 251 Ala 130, 36 So.2d 474 ; Coffee Count

1949Proof of such-damages was made in support of this theory and the court, without any exception on the part of the defendant, charged the jury that “in the third count the measure of damages would be the reasonable market value of what is proven to be taken by this trespass * * * the reasonable market value of the goods or timber *• * * at the time of the taking.” This instruction to the jury and the evidence adduced under such a theory, to which the defendant assented by his silence, was the law of the case and by which thu jury was bound, Dodd v. State, 251 Ala 130, 36 So.2d 474 ; Coffee Count

1933Assuming that the footnote is not a sufficient compliance with rule 11 of Chancery Practice by reason of the blank left in it, and that a footnote is not a mere formal matter, but is necessary to give the bill completeness (rule 12, Chancery Practice; O’Neal v. Robinson, 45 Ala. 526 ), and that, when there is an absence of a footnote, the bill is subject to demurrer, and for a blank in it, is subject to a motion to dismiss (rule 10, Chancery Practice), this court is, in respect to such matters, one of review, and the circuit court should first act upon the alleged defect, and that action prope

1915This evidence tended to corroborate the testimony of Wheeler. —Spigener v. State, 11 Ala. App. 296 , 66 South. 896 . (2) Charge 2 states no principle of law and hypothesizes no facts as a predicate for the instruction.

1914The correct principles of law contained in those charges that exclude the reasonable inferences that are to be presumed in favor of the trial court, and make them available as a predicate for error when the bill of exceptions does not pretend to set out all of the evidence (Hill v. State, 43 Ala. 335 ), are fully covered by the written charges given at the instance of the defendant.