refused instruction in Alabama

2018The trial court refused to rule on the motion, deciding instead to postpone consideration of the motion until "an appropriate length of time prior to this case being called for trial." 794 So.2d at 353 .

2018The trial court refused to rule on the motion, deciding instead to postpone consideration of the motion until "an appropriate length of time prior to this case being called for trial." 794 So.2d at 353 .

2025In State v. Mendes, 180 Wash. 2d 188 , 322 P.3d 791 (2014), the Washington Supreme Court rejected an argument that the defendant was 16 CR-2024-0426 unconstitutionally compelled to testify when the trial court refused to rule on whether there was sufficient evidence presented during the State's case-in-chief to warrant a jury instruction on self-defense.

2025In State v. Mendes, 180 Wash. 2d 188 , 322 P.3d 791 (2014), the Washington Supreme Court rejected an argument that the defendant was 16 CR-2024-0426 unconstitutionally compelled to testify when the trial court refused to rule on whether there was sufficient evidence presented during the State's case-in-chief to warrant a jury instruction on self-defense.

2012Because in the present case the trial court’s February 25, 2011, mediation order did not constitute a ruling on the merits of the mother’s motion to set aside the January 31, 2011, order, we deem it appropriate to treat the mother’s petition as one for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on her motion, which motion was, in essence, one seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(4). 1 In Ex parte Gamble, supra, this court held that, when the trial court’s order indicated “an unwillingness ... to address the merits” of an employee’s claim, pursuant to Rules 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(6), Ala. R.

2006"The court therefore bases its granting of the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the [ AmSouth Bank v. Bischoff , 678 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995)] case.

2005(R. 888.) In Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), the United States Supreme Court stated, "[W]e conclude that it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere." Beckworth sought in his requested jury instruction no. 4 to be certain that the trial court did not minimize the jury's awareness of its responsibility.

2005(R. 888.) In Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), the United States Supreme Court stated, "[W]e conclude that it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere." Beckworth sought in his requested jury instruction no. 4 to be certain that the trial court did not minimize the jury's awareness of its responsibility.

1994Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Service, Inc. v. Jericho Plantation, Inc., 481 So.2d 343 (Ala.1985).

1992In Duncan , the refused instruction was stated as follows: “The court charges the jury that if there is a probability that accused is innocent, arising from the evidence, there is a ‘reasonable doubt’ as to his guilt,” id. at 186 , 13 So.2d at 695 .

1992In Duncan , the refused instruction was stated as follows: “The court charges the jury that if there is a probability that accused is innocent, arising from the evidence, there is a ‘reasonable doubt’ as to his guilt,” id. at 186 , 13 So.2d at 695 .

1986In Nettles v. State , 435 So.2d 146 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 435 So.2d 151 (Ala. 1983), the prospective juror was the third cousin of the arresting officer, who was also the State's primary witness.

1986In Nettles v. State , 435 So.2d 146 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 435 So.2d 151 (Ala. 1983), the prospective juror was the third cousin of the arresting officer, who was also the State's primary witness.

1979See: Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Posey , 333 So.2d 815 (Ala. 1976); Alabama Power Co. v. Tatum , 293 Ala. 500 , 306 So.2d 251 (1975).

1979See: Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Posey , 333 So.2d 815 (Ala. 1976); Alabama Power Co. v. Tatum , 293 Ala. 500 , 306 So.2d 251 (1975).

1979See: Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Posey , 333 So.2d 815 (Ala. 1976); Alabama Power Co. v. Tatum , 293 Ala. 500 , 306 So.2d 251 (1975).

1952Refused instruction number 21 is not hypothesized on the “belief ‘from the evidence’.” Bush v. State, supra. Refused charge numbered 28 is not stated in the same verbiage as the instructions which were approved in Griffin v. State, 150 Ala. 49 , 43 So. 197 ; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383 , 55 So. 820 ; Jones v. State, 20 Ala.App. 96 , 101 So. 67 ; and Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419 , 126 So. 414 .

1952Refused instruction number 21 is not hypothesized on the “belief ‘from the evidence’.” Bush v. State, supra. Refused charge numbered 28 is not stated in the same verbiage as the instructions which were approved in Griffin v. State, 150 Ala. 49 , 43 So. 197 ; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383 , 55 So. 820 ; Jones v. State, 20 Ala.App. 96 , 101 So. 67 ; and Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419 , 126 So. 414 .

1952Refused instruction number 21 is not hypothesized on the “belief ‘from the evidence’.” Bush v. State, supra. Refused charge numbered 28 is not stated in the same verbiage as the instructions which were approved in Griffin v. State, 150 Ala. 49 , 43 So. 197 ; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383 , 55 So. 820 ; Jones v. State, 20 Ala.App. 96 , 101 So. 67 ; and Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419 , 126 So. 414 .

1952Refused instruction number 21 is not hypothesized on the “belief ‘from the evidence’.” Bush v. State, supra. Refused charge numbered 28 is not stated in the same verbiage as the instructions which were approved in Griffin v. State, 150 Ala. 49 , 43 So. 197 ; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383 , 55 So. 820 ; Jones v. State, 20 Ala.App. 96 , 101 So. 67 ; and Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419 , 126 So. 414 .

1952Refused instruction number 21 is not hypothesized on the “belief ‘from the evidence’.” Bush v. State, supra. Refused charge numbered 28 is not stated in the same verbiage as the instructions which were approved in Griffin v. State, 150 Ala. 49 , 43 So. 197 ; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383 , 55 So. 820 ; Jones v. State, 20 Ala.App. 96 , 101 So. 67 ; and Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419 , 126 So. 414 .

1952Refused instruction number 21 is not hypothesized on the “belief ‘from the evidence’.” Bush v. State, supra. Refused charge numbered 28 is not stated in the same verbiage as the instructions which were approved in Griffin v. State, 150 Ala. 49 , 43 So. 197 ; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383 , 55 So. 820 ; Jones v. State, 20 Ala.App. 96 , 101 So. 67 ; and Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419 , 126 So. 414 .

1952Refused instruction number 21 is not hypothesized on the “belief ‘from the evidence’.” Bush v. State, supra. Refused charge numbered 28 is not stated in the same verbiage as the instructions which were approved in Griffin v. State, 150 Ala. 49 , 43 So. 197 ; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383 , 55 So. 820 ; Jones v. State, 20 Ala.App. 96 , 101 So. 67 ; and Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419 , 126 So. 414 .

1952Refused instruction number 21 is not hypothesized on the “belief ‘from the evidence’.” Bush v. State, supra. Refused charge numbered 28 is not stated in the same verbiage as the instructions which were approved in Griffin v. State, 150 Ala. 49 , 43 So. 197 ; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383 , 55 So. 820 ; Jones v. State, 20 Ala.App. 96 , 101 So. 67 ; and Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419 , 126 So. 414 .

1948Refused instruction lg was approved in the following cases: Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44 , 17 So. 321 ; Smith v. State, 68 Ala. 424 ; Williams v. State, 114 Ala. 19 , 21 So. 993 .

1948Refused instruction lg was approved in the following cases: Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44 , 17 So. 321 ; Smith v. State, 68 Ala. 424 ; Williams v. State, 114 Ala. 19 , 21 So. 993 .

1948Refused instruction lg was approved in the following cases: Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44 , 17 So. 321 ; Smith v. State, 68 Ala. 424 ; Williams v. State, 114 Ala. 19 , 21 So. 993 .

1948In Brown v. State, 142 Ala. 287 , 38 So. 268 , the Gregg and Williams cases, supra, were specifically overruled in relation to the instant charge.

1915While there is evidence of a statement to attorneys by Piper of facts and circumstances pertinent to the matter of the indebtedness to collect which the attachment proceeding was instituted on an affidavit made by the defendant, there is no evidence that the facts and circumstances, recited in the bill of exceptions as having been detailed to the attorney or attorneys by Piper, were, as the refused instruction hypothesized, “a full and fair statement of all the facts” bearing on the case, “within the knowledge of Piper,” or those known to the defendant. — Motes v. Bates, 80 Ala. 382, 386 ; Jor