86 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1937–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2004In Ake , the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of fundamental fairness required that an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding be provided the means to build an effective defense, 470 U.S. at 76-77 , 105 S.Ct. at 1092-93 , but this case involved a transfer hearing and this Court has specifically stated that ‘a transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the child accused of a crime but is, instead, a probable cause hearing to determine whether the child should be transferred out of the juvenile court for criminal prosecution as an a 1997Even if the issue had been preserved, we would not grant M.D. the relief he requests because the trial court’s finding that probable cause existed was proper. “ ‘ [A] transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the child accused of a crime but is, instead, a probable cause hearing to determine whether the child should be transferred out of the juvenile court for criminal prosecution as an adult.’ Brown v. State, 353 So.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Ala.1977). | 14 | 25 |
WM v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See A.M. v. State, [621] So.2d [369] (Ala.Cr.App.1992). “ ‘[A] transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the accused, but instead is a probable cause hearing, to determine whether the juvenile should be transferred out of the juvenile court for prosecution as an adult.’ W.M. v. State, 607 So.2d 1303, 1304-05 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). 1994See A.M. v. State, [ 621 So.2d 369 ] (Ala.Cr.App.1992). “ ‘[A] transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the accused, but instead is a probable cause hearing, to determine whether the juvenile should be transferred out of the juvenile court for prosecution as an adult.” W.M. v. State, 607 So.2d 1303, 1304-05 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). | 10 | 11 |
Duncan v. Stategreen2 sentences1997At the probable cause phase, the court must find that `a reasonable man would believe the crime occurred and that the defendant committed it.' Duncan v. State, 394 So.2d 930, 932 (Ala.1981)." J.M.V. v. State, 651 So.2d 1087, 1090 (Ala. Crim.App.1994). 1997At the probable cause phase, the court must find that ‘a reasonable man would believe the crime occurred and that the defendant committed it.’ Duncan v. State, 394 So.2d 930, 932 (Ala.1981).” J.M.V. v. State, 651 So.2d 1087, 1090 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). | 8 | 12 |
AM v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See A.M. v. State, [ 621 So.2d 369 ] (Ala.Cr.App.1992). “ ‘[A] transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the accused, but instead is a probable cause hearing, to determine whether the juvenile should be transferred out of the juvenile court for prosecution as an adult.” W.M. v. State, 607 So.2d 1303, 1304-05 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). 1994See A.M. v. State, [ 621 So.2d 369 ] (Ala.Cr.App.1992). "`[A] transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the accused, but instead is a probable cause hearing, to determine whether the juvenile should be transferred out of the juvenile court for prosecution as an adult." W.M. v. State, 607 So.2d 1303, 1304-05 (Ala.Cr. | 5 | 5 |
Gulledge v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Gulledge v. State, 419 So.2d 219, 220 (Ala.1982) (holding that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to a transfer hearing because it is a probable cause hearing rather than a criminal prosecution); Cruse v. State, 489 So.2d 694, 697 (Ala. Cr.App.1986) (holding that a transfer hearing is not a ‘criminal prosecution’ within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment’s guaranty of the right to a speedy trial). 1993See, Gulledge v. State, 419 So.2d 219, 220 (Ala.1982) (holding that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to a transfer hearing because it is a probable cause hearing rather than a criminal prosecution); Cruse v. State, 489 So.2d 694, 697 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (holding that a transfer hearing is not a “criminal prosecution” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment’s guaranty of the right to a speedy trial). | 3 | 8 |
Ex Parte WTKgreen2 sentences1994See also Ex parte W.T.K., 586 So.2d 850 (Ala.1991); Smith v. State, 475 So.2d 633 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). 1994See also Ex parte W.T.K., 586 So.2d 850 (Ala.1991); Smith v. State, 475 So.2d 633 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). | 3 | 5 |
Darden v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See State v. Johnson , 682 So.2d 385 , 391 (Ala. 1996)(Maddox, J., concurring specially); see also Darden v. State , 571 So.2d 1272 , 1279-80 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), quoting 1 W. 2011See State v. Johnson, 682 So.2d 385, 391 (Ala.1996) (Maddox, J., concurring specially); see also Darden v. State, 571 So.2d 1272, 1279-80 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), quoting 1 W. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2011See State v. Johnson , 682 So.2d 385 , 391 (Ala. 1996)(Maddox, J., concurring specially); see also Darden v. State , 571 So.2d 1272 , 1279-80 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), quoting 1 W. 2011See State v. Johnson, 682 So.2d 385, 391 (Ala.1996) (Maddox, J., concurring specially); see also Darden v. State, 571 So.2d 1272, 1279-80 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), quoting 1 W. | 3 | 3 |
Cruse v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Gulledge v. State, 419 So.2d 219, 220 (Ala.1982) (holding that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to a transfer hearing because it is a probable cause hearing rather than a criminal prosecution); Cruse v. State, 489 So.2d 694, 697 (Ala. Cr.App.1986) (holding that a transfer hearing is not a ‘criminal prosecution’ within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment’s guaranty of the right to a speedy trial). 1993See, Gulledge v. State, 419 So.2d 219, 220 (Ala.1982) (holding that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to a transfer hearing because it is a probable cause hearing rather than a criminal prosecution); Cruse v. State, 489 So.2d 694, 697 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (holding that a transfer hearing is not a “criminal prosecution” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment’s guaranty of the right to a speedy trial). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Cortezgreen2 sentences2003Our observation in United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411 , 418 (1981), regarding `particularized suspicion,' is also applicable to the probable cause standard: "'The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. 2003Our observation in United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981), regarding `particularized suspicion,' is also applicable to the probable cause standard: "`The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. | 2 | 7 |
MB v. Stategreen2 sentences2001In J.S.J. v. State, 666 So.2d 109, 110 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), this Court stated: “The probable cause hearing is governed by a ‘reasonably prudent man’ standard, which defines probable cause as ‘that which warrants a man of reasonable prudence and caution in believing that the offense has been committed and that the juvenile in question is the offender.’ M.B. v. State, 641 So.2d 330, 332 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). 1995The probable cause hearing is governed by a “reasonably prudent man” standard, which defines probable cause as “that which warrants a man of reasonable prudence and caution in believing that the offense has been committed and that the juvenile in question is the offender.” M.B. v. State, 641 So.2d 330, 332 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). | 2 | 2 |
JMV v. Stategreen2 sentences1997At the probable cause phase, the court must find that `a reasonable man would believe the crime occurred and that the defendant committed it.' Duncan v. State, 394 So.2d 930, 932 (Ala.1981)." J.M.V. v. State, 651 So.2d 1087, 1090 (Ala. Crim.App.1994). 1997At the probable cause phase, the court must find that ‘a reasonable man would believe the crime occurred and that the defendant committed it.’ Duncan v. State, 394 So.2d 930, 932 (Ala.1981).” J.M.V. v. State, 651 So.2d 1087, 1090 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). | 2 | 2 |
RLS v. Stategreen2 sentences1994"It is not necessary, at the transfer hearing, that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill the police officers. `[A] transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the accused, but instead is a probable cause hearing, to determine whether the juvenile should be transferred out of juvenile court for prosecution as an adult.' W.M. v. State, 607 So.2d 1303, 1304 (Ala.Cr.App.1992)." R.L.S. v. State, 619 So.2d 940, 941 (Ala.Cr. 1994“It is not necessary, at the transfer hearing, that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill the police officers. ‘[A] transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the accused, but instead is a probable cause hearing, to determine whether the juvenile should be transferred out of juvenile court for prosecution as an adult.’ W.M. v. State, 607 So.2d 1303, 1304 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).” RL.S. v. State, 619 So.2d 940, 941 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). | 2 | 2 |
H.P.W. v. Stategreen2 sentences1993The trial court was required by the Court of Criminal Appeals only to give the juvenile “the opportunity to procure his medical records, as well as any other evidence relating to his mental problems.” H.P.W. v. State, 591 So.2d 141, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). 1993The trial court was required by the Court of Criminal Appeals only to give the juvenile "the opportunity to procure his medical records, as well as any other evidence relating to his mental problems." H.P.W. v. State, 591 So.2d 141, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See also Ex parte W.T.K., 586 So.2d 850 (Ala.1991); Smith v. State, 475 So.2d 633 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). 1994See also Ex parte W.T.K., 586 So.2d 850 (Ala.1991); Smith v. State, 475 So.2d 633 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). | 1 | 5 |
Brinegar v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003It is clear that the expertise and experience of a police officer may be taken into account in applying the probable cause test, see Pearson v. State , 542 So.2d 955 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989), and that the test of probable cause is indeed concerned with probabilities, `factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' Brinegar , supra , 338 U.S. at 175 , 69 S.Ct. at 1310. 2003It is clear that the expertise and experience of a police officer may be taken into account in applying the probable cause test, see Pearson v. State , 542 So.2d 955 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989), and that the test of probable cause is indeed concerned with probabilities, `factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' Brinegar , supra , 338 U.S. at 175 , 69 S.Ct. at 1310. | 1 | 4 |
Ex Parte JRgreen2 sentences1995At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court determines whether it is in the best interest of the child or the public to transfer the child.’ ” A.M v. State, 621 So.2d 369, 369-370 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), quoting Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444, 445 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837 , 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). 1992At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court determines whether it is in the best interest of the child or the public to transfer the child.” Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444 , 445 n. 1 (Ala.1991), (Kennedy, J. dissenting from denial of cert.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). | 1 | 3 |
Hammond v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Speers v. State. "[W]e follow the majority view and hold that a delay in presenting one arrested without a warrant to a judge for a probable cause hearing is one circumstance to be considered in determining the voluntariness of a statement given during the delay." Hammond v. State, 497 So.2d at 565 . 1989Ex parte Meeks , 434 So.2d 844 , 846 (Ala. 1983) ("The exclusionary sanction clearly applies to confessions or statements of the accused obtained during an illegal arrest and conviction."); Hammond v. State , 497 So.2d 558 , 565 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986) ("[W]e follow the majority view and hold that a delay in presenting one arrested without a warrant to a judge for a probable cause hearing is one circumstance to be considered in determining the voluntariness of a statement given during the delay."). | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Mississippigreen2 sentences1990See Davis v. Mississippi , 394 U.S. 721 , 726-27 , 89 S.Ct. 1394 , 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969). 1990See Davis v. Mississippi , 394 U.S. 721 , 726-27 , 89 S.Ct. 1394 , 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969). | 1 | 2 |
| Sheridan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Montgomerygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Melson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| J.S.J. v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| County of Riverside v. McLaughlingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stanfield v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eichelberger v. Aycockgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McReynolds v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stevens v. Board of Law Examinersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| ADT v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Meeksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| William (Bob) Brown v. Wiley C. Edwards and All Other Constables in the State of Mississippigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robert Louis Stephenson v. Walter Gaskins, Sheriff, Berrien Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. McCollangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Winstead v. State
green
2 sentences1992Winstead v. State, Ala., 371 So.2d 418 (1979); Brown v. State, Ala., 353 So.2d 1384 (1978). 1985A transfer hearing has been classified as a probable cause hearing, Winstead v. State, 371 So.2d 418 (Ala. 1979), and because it is not held to determine guilt or innocence, the strict rules of evidence do not apply. | 7 | 1981–1992 |
Ex Parte Whisenant
green
2 sentences2002Ex parte Whisenant, 466 So.2d 1006 (Ala.), on remand, Whisenant v. State, 466 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). 1992Ex parte Whisenant, 466 So.2d 1006 (Ala.1985). | 6 | 1987–2002 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences2003In Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 , 231-32 (1983), the United States Supreme Court adopted the "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach for evaluating the presence or absence of probable cause, stating the following: "Perhaps the central teaching of our decisions bearing on the probable cause standard is that it is a `practical, nontechnical conception.' Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160 , 176 (1949). `In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. 2003In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231-32 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the United States Supreme Court adopted the "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach for evaluating the presence or absence of probable cause, stating the following: "Perhaps the central teaching of our decisions bearing on the probable cause standard is that it is a `practical, nontechnical conception.' Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949). `In dealing with probable cause, ... as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. | 4 | 1985–2024 |
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2004In Ake , the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of fundamental fairness required that an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding be provided the means to build an effective defense, 470 U.S. at 76-77 , 105 S.Ct. at 1092-93 , but this case involved a transfer hearing and this Court has specifically stated that ‘a transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the child accused of a crime but is, instead, a probable cause hearing to determine whether the child should be transferred out of the juvenile court for criminal prosecution as an a 2004In Ake , the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of fundamental fairness required that an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding be provided the means to build an effective defense, 470 U.S. at 76-77 , 105 S.Ct. at 1092-93 , but this case involved a transfer hearing and this Court has specifically stated that ‘a transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the child accused of a crime but is, instead, a probable cause hearing to determine whether the child should be transferred out of the juvenile court for criminal prosecution as an a | 3 | 1993–2004 |
Deerman v. State
green
2 sentences2002Ex parte Whisenant, 466 So.2d 1006 (Ala.), on remand, Whisenant v. State, 466 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). 1991Ex parte Whisenant, 466 So.2d 1006 (Ala.), on remand, Whisenant v. State, 466 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). | 3 | 1991–2002 |
Huguenin v. Adams
green
2 sentences1995At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court determines whether it is in the best interest of the child or the public to transfer the child.’ ” A.M v. State, 621 So.2d 369, 369-370 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), quoting Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444, 445 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837 , 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). 1992At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court determines whether it is in the best interest of the child or the public to transfer the child.” Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444 , 445 n. 1 (Ala.1991), (Kennedy, J. dissenting from denial of cert.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). | 3 | 1992–1995 |
Vincent v. State
green
2 sentences1985Winstead, supra; Vincent v. State, 349 So.2d 1145 (Ala. 1977); Gulledge v. State, 419 So.2d 219 (Ala.1982). 1978We expressly so held in the recent juvenile transfer case of Vincent v. State, 349 So.2d 1145 (Ala.1977): “It has long been recognized that the strict rules of evidence do not apply in a probable cause hearing. | 3 | 1977–1985 |
Pearson v. State
neutral
2 sentences2003It is clear that the expertise and experience of a police officer may be taken into account in applying the probable cause test, see Pearson v. State , 542 So.2d 955 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989), and that the test of probable cause is indeed concerned with probabilities, `factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' Brinegar , supra , 338 U.S. at 175 , 69 S.Ct. at 1310. 2003It is clear that the expertise and experience of a police officer may be taken into account in applying the probable cause test, see Pearson v. State, 542 So.2d 955 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), and that the test of probable cause is indeed concerned with probabilities, `factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' Brinegar, supra, 338 U.S. at 175 , 69 S.Ct. at 1310 . | 2 | 1995–2003 |
Scurlock v. State
green
2 sentences1998Scurlock v. State , 487 So.2d 286 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). "`"The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and to allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. 1990Scurlock v. State, 487 So.2d 286 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). "`The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and to allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. | 2 | 1990–1998 |
Costello v. United States
green
2 sentences1991(Committee Comments) (“There is no constitutional requirement that hearsay evidence be excluded from a probable cause hearing,” citing Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956)). 1991(Committee Comments) (“There is no constitutional requirement that hearsay evidence be excluded from a probable cause hearing,” citing Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956)). | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Ash v. State
green
2 sentences1985Brown v. State , 353 So.2d 1384 (Ala. 1977); Ash v. State , 424 So.2d 1381 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982), cert. denied, 424 So.2d 1381 (Ala. 1983); Tucker v. State , 426 So.2d 513 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). 1985Brown v. State , 353 So.2d 1384 (Ala. 1977); Ash v. State , 424 So.2d 1381 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982), cert. denied, 424 So.2d 1381 (Ala. 1983); Tucker v. State , 426 So.2d 513 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). | 2 | 1985–1985 |
| Tucker v. State neutral | 2 | 1985–1985 |
| Shipman v. State green | 2 | 1977–1981 |
| Armstrong v. State green | 2 | 1977–1978 |
| Bush v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Powell v. Nevada green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Ex Parte HPW green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Ex Parte Tucker green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Herrin v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Ex Parte Herrin. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Martin v. United States green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Matter of Tacy neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| WCP v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| United States v. James Edward Colkley, United States of America v. Jamison Henry Johnson green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| DH v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State in Interest of RW green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| In Re Le Blanc green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Raughley v. State neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Lynch v. Baxley green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| In Re GAULT green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Lynch v. Baxley green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Spellman v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Hornsby v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Henry Deleiano Harris v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Melvin Perry and Next Friend, Phyllis Brown v. Clarence Jones green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| United States v. Thomas Bruce Allen, A/K/A Tom Allen green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Walker v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Swicegood v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| cluster 398883 green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.