timely objection exception in Alabama

2013Likewise, in United States v. Chandler, 12 F.3d 1427 (7th Cir.1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explained that “[a] defendant who suspects that a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge to a venireperson is motivated by racial discrimination must make a timely objection to the challenge.” Chandler, 12 F.3d at 1430-31 .

2013Likewise, in United States v. Chandler, 12 F.3d 1427 (7th Cir.1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explained that “[a] defendant who suspects that a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge to a venireperson is motivated by racial discrimination must make a timely objection to the challenge.” Chandler, 12 F.3d at 1430-31 .

2013Likewise, in United States v. Chandler; 12 F.3d 1427 (7th Cir.1994), the Seventh Circuit explained that “[a] defendant who suspects that a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge to a venireperson is motivated by racial discrimination must make a timely objection to the challenge.” 12 F.3d at 1430-31 , Finally, in United States v. Clark, 409 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir.2005), the Eighth Circuit held that a “gender-based Batson challenge,” not made “until after the venire had been dismissed,” was waived. 409 F.3d at 1043 .

2013Likewise, in United States v. Chandler; 12 F.3d 1427 (7th Cir.1994), the Seventh Circuit explained that “[a] defendant who suspects that a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge to a venireperson is motivated by racial discrimination must make a timely objection to the challenge.” 12 F.3d at 1430-31 , Finally, in United States v. Clark, 409 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir.2005), the Eighth Circuit held that a “gender-based Batson challenge,” not made “until after the venire had been dismissed,” was waived. 409 F.3d at 1043 .

1925Under the authority of Hill v. State, 207 Ala. 444 , 93 So. 460 , Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94 , 14 So. 868 , and other decisions of our Supreme Court of a similar import, we must hold that the trial court was in error in admitting, over the timely objection and exception of the defendant, the testimony to the effect that the defendant admitted or confessed owning or possessing the liquor supposed to have been in the car which ran away, or was supposed to have run away, from where the officers were located on the Montgomery Highway at 3 or 3:30 o’clock on a certain morning.

1922Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94 , 14 South. 868 ; Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42 ; Colquitt v. State, 61 Ala. 48 .

2013Finally, in United States v. Clark, 409 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir.2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a “gender-based Batson [v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),] challenge,” not made “until after the veni-re had been dismissed,” was waived.

2012Contractors, Inc., 361 So.2d 516, 518 (Ala.1978) (‘A motion for a new trial cannot replace a timely objection or exception which could, and should, properly be made during the trial.’).” 906 So.2d at 164-65 .

1998Kuenzel, supra. Furthermore, the decision to allow jurors to take notes and use them in their deliberations is discretionary with the trial court.

1978Ritchey v. State , 293 Ala. 265 , 302 So.2d 83 (1974).

1978Ritchey v. State , 293 Ala. 265 , 302 So.2d 83 (1974).

1942With respect to testimony taken at a preliminary trial Section 5233 of the Code of Alabama 1923, Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 135, requires that: “The evidence of the witnesses examined, both for the state and for the defendant, must be reduced to writing by the magistrate, or under his direction, and signed by the witnesses respectively.” Said Section appeared in the Code of Alabama, 1907, as Section 7600, and this Section of the Code of 1907 was considered by our Supreme Court in the case of Davis v. State, 168 Ala. 53 , 52 So. 939, 940 , where it was said: “The said confession having been made dur

1942With respect to testimony taken at a preliminary trial Section 5233 of the Code of Alabama 1923, Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 135, requires that: “The evidence of the witnesses examined, both for the state and for the defendant, must be reduced to writing by the magistrate, or under his direction, and signed by the witnesses respectively.” Said Section appeared in the Code of Alabama, 1907, as Section 7600, and this Section of the Code of 1907 was considered by our Supreme Court in the case of Davis v. State, 168 Ala. 53 , 52 So. 939, 940 , where it was said: “The said confession having been made dur

1925Under the authority of Hill v. State, 207 Ala. 444 , 93 So. 460 , Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94 , 14 So. 868 , and other decisions of our Supreme Court of a similar import, we must hold that the trial court was in error in admitting, over the timely objection and exception of the defendant, the testimony to the effect that the defendant admitted or confessed owning or possessing the liquor supposed to have been in the car which ran away, or was supposed to have run away, from where the officers were located on the Montgomery Highway at 3 or 3:30 o’clock on a certain morning.

1925Under the authority of Hill v. State, 207 Ala. 444 , 93 So. 460 , Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94 , 14 So. 868 , and other decisions of our Supreme Court of a similar import, we must hold that the trial court was in error in admitting, over the timely objection and exception of the defendant, the testimony to the effect that the defendant admitted or confessed owning or possessing the liquor supposed to have been in the car which ran away, or was supposed to have run away, from where the officers were located on the Montgomery Highway at 3 or 3:30 o’clock on a certain morning.

1922Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94 , 14 South. 868 ; Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42 ; Colquitt v. State, 61 Ala. 48 .

1922Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94 , 14 South. 868 ; Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42 ; Colquitt v. State, 61 Ala. 48 .

1922This court in Herbert v. State. 16 Ala. App. 213 , 77 South. 83 , held to the opinion that: “Subsequent and continuous association, protestations of love, and acts [of intercourse] with the prosecutrix, tended to corroborate the state’s witnesses, and to have shown a motive for her having yielded her virtue to him” —and we triad in that case to differentiate it from the case of Pope v. State, 137 Ala. 59 , 34 South. 840 , but on certiorari to the Supreme Court (Herbert v. State, 201 Ala. 480 , 78 South. 386 ) the Supreme Court took a different view, and held that: “Where prosecutrix testified

1922This court in Herbert v. State. 16 Ala. App. 213 , 77 South. 83 , held to the opinion that: “Subsequent and continuous association, protestations of love, and acts [of intercourse] with the prosecutrix, tended to corroborate the state’s witnesses, and to have shown a motive for her having yielded her virtue to him” —and we triad in that case to differentiate it from the case of Pope v. State, 137 Ala. 59 , 34 South. 840 , but on certiorari to the Supreme Court (Herbert v. State, 201 Ala. 480 , 78 South. 386 ) the Supreme Court took a different view, and held that: “Where prosecutrix testified

1922This court in Herbert v. State. 16 Ala. App. 213 , 77 South. 83 , held to the opinion that: “Subsequent and continuous association, protestations of love, and acts [of intercourse] with the prosecutrix, tended to corroborate the state’s witnesses, and to have shown a motive for her having yielded her virtue to him” —and we triad in that case to differentiate it from the case of Pope v. State, 137 Ala. 59 , 34 South. 840 , but on certiorari to the Supreme Court (Herbert v. State, 201 Ala. 480 , 78 South. 386 ) the Supreme Court took a different view, and held that: “Where prosecutrix testified

1922This court in Herbert v. State. 16 Ala. App. 213 , 77 South. 83 , held to the opinion that: “Subsequent and continuous association, protestations of love, and acts [of intercourse] with the prosecutrix, tended to corroborate the state’s witnesses, and to have shown a motive for her having yielded her virtue to him” —and we triad in that case to differentiate it from the case of Pope v. State, 137 Ala. 59 , 34 South. 840 , but on certiorari to the Supreme Court (Herbert v. State, 201 Ala. 480 , 78 South. 386 ) the Supreme Court took a different view, and held that: “Where prosecutrix testified

1921On the contrary, in King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239 , 62 South. 374 , this court, on the authority of Moon’s Adm’r v. Crowder, 72 Ala. 88 , held: “Where the prosecution was for forging a check, a genuine check made by the alleged drawer of the forged check was not admissible in evidence.” King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239 , 62 South. 374 . [3] Neither was the check admissible for a comparison of handwriting.

1921On the contrary, in King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239 , 62 South. 374 , this court, on the authority of Moon’s Adm’r v. Crowder, 72 Ala. 88 , held: “Where the prosecution was for forging a check, a genuine check made by the alleged drawer of the forged check was not admissible in evidence.” King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239 , 62 South. 374 . [3] Neither was the check admissible for a comparison of handwriting.

1921On the contrary, in King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239 , 62 South. 374 , this court, on the authority of Moon’s Adm’r v. Crowder, 72 Ala. 88 , held: “Where the prosecution was for forging a check, a genuine check made by the alleged drawer of the forged check was not admissible in evidence.” King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239 , 62 South. 374 . [3] Neither was the check admissible for a comparison of handwriting.

1921On the contrary, in King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239 , 62 South. 374 , this court, on the authority of Moon’s Adm’r v. Crowder, 72 Ala. 88 , held: “Where the prosecution was for forging a check, a genuine check made by the alleged drawer of the forged check was not admissible in evidence.” King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239 , 62 South. 374 . [3] Neither was the check admissible for a comparison of handwriting.

1921On cross-examination of this witness, the state was permitted, over the timely objection and exception of defendant, to show that about the time of the alleged forgery the defendant had given her a check for $1,200, and, .upon the witness identifying the check, over the objection and exception of defendant, it was intro■duced in evidence, with this statement from the court: “I think it would be admissible for the purpose of throwing light upon the intent as to the other transaction, but for that purpose only, and for that purpose only I will allow the question to be answered.” This cheek was d

1921On cross-examination of this witness, the state was permitted, over the timely objection and exception of defendant, to show that about the time of the alleged forgery the defendant had given her a check for $1,200, and, .upon the witness identifying the check, over the objection and exception of defendant, it was intro■duced in evidence, with this statement from the court: “I think it would be admissible for the purpose of throwing light upon the intent as to the other transaction, but for that purpose only, and for that purpose only I will allow the question to be answered.” This cheek was d

1921On cross-examination of this witness, the state was permitted, over the timely objection and exception of defendant, to show that about the time of the alleged forgery the defendant had given her a check for $1,200, and, .upon the witness identifying the check, over the objection and exception of defendant, it was intro■duced in evidence, with this statement from the court: “I think it would be admissible for the purpose of throwing light upon the intent as to the other transaction, but for that purpose only, and for that purpose only I will allow the question to be answered.” This cheek was d

1921On cross-examination of this witness, the state was permitted, over the timely objection and exception of defendant, to show that about the time of the alleged forgery the defendant had given her a check for $1,200, and, .upon the witness identifying the check, over the objection and exception of defendant, it was intro■duced in evidence, with this statement from the court: “I think it would be admissible for the purpose of throwing light upon the intent as to the other transaction, but for that purpose only, and for that purpose only I will allow the question to be answered.” This cheek was d