gave instruction in Alabama

11 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2013 0 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Ex Parte Martingreen ala · 1989 · cited in 5 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1996–2007 2 sentences 2007The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , `the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor.' For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1999The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , "the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor." For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1	5	5
Lee v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013(R. 597-98); see Lee v. State, 898 So.2d 790, 842 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).	1	1
United States v. Andrew Charles Nelson, Paul Miller Harrison, James Welty and Sandra Weltygreen ca5 · 1974 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000In United States v. Nelson, 498 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir.1974), cited by the Supreme Court in Taylor , the trial court gave no instruction on the presumption of innocence but the government argues ‘that references to the presumption by the court and counsel throughout the proceedings, from voir dire to closing argument, adequately apprised the jury of the presumption of innocence.’ Id. at 1248. 2000In United States v. Nelson, 498 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir.1974), cited by the Supreme Court in Taylor , the trial court gave no instruction on the presumption of innocence but the government argues ‘that references to the presumption by the court and counsel throughout the proceedings, from voir dire to closing argument, adequately apprised the jury of the presumption of innocence.’ Id. at 1248.	1	1
Bui v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990“It is well settled that the trial court has discretion regarding how the voir dire examination of the jury venire will be conducted, and that reversal can be predicated only upon an abuse of that discretion.” Bui v. State, 551 So.2d 1094, 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.1989).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Windsor v. State green alacrimapp · 1994 2 sentences 2007The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , `the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor.' For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1999The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , "the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor." For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1	5	1996–2007
Kuenzel v. State green alacrimapp · 1990 2 sentences 2007The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , `the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor.' For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1999The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , "the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor." For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1	5	1996–2007
Luna v. United States green scotus · 1991 2 sentences 2007The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , `the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor.' For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1999The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , "the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor." For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1	5	1996–2007
Bradley v. Puckett green scotus · 1991 2 sentences 2007The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , `the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor.' For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1999The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , "the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor." For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1	5	1996–2007
In re Sparks green scotus · 1989 2 sentences 2007The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , `the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor.' For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1999The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , "the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor." For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1	5	1996–2007
Polyak v. Hamilton green scotus · 1989 2 sentences 2007The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , `the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor.' For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1999The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , "the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor." For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1	5	1996–2007
Hutcherson v. State green alacrimapp · 1994 2 sentences 2007The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , `the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor.' For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1999The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , "the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor." For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1	5	1996–2007
Ex Parte Kuenzel green ala · 1991 2 sentences 2007The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , `the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor.' For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1999The court gave no instruction suggesting that a finding of a mitigating circumstance had to be unanimous. "`The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this identical issue in Ex parte Martin, 548 So.2d 496, 499 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970 , 110 S.Ct. 419 , 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989), and held that under the instructions given in Martin , "the jurors could not have reasonably believed that they were required to agree unanimously on the existence of any particular mitigating factor." For cases following Martin , see Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1	4	1996–2007
Ex Parte Minor green ala · 2000 1 sentence 2011We note that although Stanley cites Ex parte Minor, 780 So.2d 796 (Ala.2000), and other cases in support of his claim, the Alabama Supreme Court in Johnson v. State, 120 So.3d at 1126-27, distinguished these cases from the present situation, because in those cases, the prior-conviction evidence was being introduced to impeach the defendant’s credibility. .	1	2011–2011
United States v. Chester Lee Thaxton green ca5 · 1973 1 sentence 2000While recognizing that these references coupled with the court’s instruction on the burden of proof in the case may satisfy the first purpose of a presumption of innocence instruction, Id. at 1248-49, the court held that ‘even continual references throughout the proceedings do not sufficiently remind the jury at the conclusion of the evidence that, in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, it must put away from their minds “all the suspicion that arises from the arrest, the indictment, and the arraignment, and to reach their conclusion solely from the legal evidence adduced.” ’ Id.	1	2000–2000
Haney v. City of Lexington green kyctapphigh · 1964 2 sentences 1975However, it is noted in that opinion, Haney v. City of Lexington, supra, that in a prior opinion “ . this Court gave warning that it was dissatisfied with the rule of municipal immunity.” ( 386 S.W.2d at 742 ) No opinion by this court has issued such a warning. 1975However, it is noted in that opinion, Haney v. City of Lexington, supra, that in a prior opinion “ . this Court gave warning that it was dissatisfied with the rule of municipal immunity.” ( 386 S.W.2d at 742 ) No opinion by this court has issued such a warning.	1	1975–1975
Elliott v. Howison green · 1906 2 sentences 1918This instruction proceeded on -the incorrect theory that Headley’s obligation to “get” the 200 acres of timber was dependent, within the doctrine of Elliott v. Howison, 146 Ala. 568 , 40 South. 1018 , among others in that line; that the vendee was obliged by the agreement to call for performance by Headley and at least avow willingness and ability to perform on the vendee’s part; whereas, until Headley offered the vendee the 200 acres there was no obligation on the vendee to do anything, the vendor’s offer, when made, being efficient to put in operation the 60-day period during which the vende 1918This instruction proceeded on -the incorrect theory that Headley’s obligation to “get” the 200 acres of timber was dependent, within the doctrine of Elliott v. Howison, 146 Ala. 568 , 40 South. 1018 , among others in that line; that the vendee was obliged by the agreement to call for performance by Headley and at least avow willingness and ability to perform on the vendee’s part; whereas, until Headley offered the vendee the 200 acres there was no obligation on the vendee to do anything, the vendor’s offer, when made, being efficient to put in operation the 60-day period during which the vende	1	1918–1918

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-40 (7) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-45 (6) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-51 (6) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-52 (6) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-47 (5) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-49 (5) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 (5) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-3-1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 265 (1899–2026) MO 88 (1877–2025) IL 70 (1883–2024) WA 66 (1906–2026) FL 45 (1970–2025) TX 42 (1919–2026) IN 41 (1835–2018) NY 33 (1930–2024) OK 32 (1897–2009) AR 30 (1861–2010) OH 29 (1982–2026) MI 25 (1926–2025) KY 24 (1912–2016) GA 23 (1974–2025) OR 22 (1963–2026) KS 21 (1900–2020) CT 20 (1913–2022) CO 19 (1947–2026) IA 19 (1882–2017) NC 19 (1929–2026) NE 19 (1907–2023) AZ 18 (1945–2019) PA 18 (1932–2026) VA 15 (1929–2026) DC 13 (1974–2014) LA 11 (1984–2020) MN 11 (1974–2026) AL 11 (1918–2013) WY 10 (1907–2025) ID 9 (1932–2013) NM 9 (1952–2018) TN 9 (1934–2026) NJ 8 (1976–2025) MS 8 (1967–2026) MT 7 (1905–1988) WV 7 (1891–2016) UT 6 (1911–2022) NH 6 (1970–2017) HI 5 (1962–2015) SD 5 (1900–1999) MD 5 (1970–2021) NV 4 (1914–2014) ME 4 (1991–2005) ND 4 (1974–2003) WI 4 (1958–1995) AK 3 (1971–1985)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check