Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dixon v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d at 1260 (“The form of prejudice that would entitle a party to relief for a juror’s nondisclosure or falsification in voir dire would be its effect, if any, to cause the party to forgo challenging the juror for cause or exercising a peremptory challenge to strike the juror.” (citations and quotations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
McFadden v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See McFadden, supra. Therefore, the circuit court erred when it summarily dismissed the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Terry Covingtongreen1 sentence1999See United States v. Covington, 783 F.2d 1052 , 1056 (9th Cir. 1986). 6 The record indicates that defense counsel was being very conservative in his presentation of evidence and argument as part of a trial strategy to prevent the admission of evidence of six other robberies in which store clerks were either murdered or shot, allegedly by Pressley and Gamble, during the same time frame as the charged murders. | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See Rogers v. State , 630 So.2d 78 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), reversed on other grounds, 630 So.2d 88 (Ala. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See Rogers v. State , 630 So.2d 78 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), reversed on other grounds, 630 So.2d 88 (Ala. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1989See Williams v. State, [Ms. 3 Div. 305 , March 8, 1988] 530 So.2d 881 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), and the cases cited therein_ [I]n order to preserve the issue for appellate review, a Batson objection, in a case in which the death penalty has not been imposed, must be made prior to the jury’s being sworn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2016P. In Morris v. State , 60 So.3d 326 , 339 Ala.Crim.App.2010), this Court stated: "The record indicates that a hearing was held pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002), and following the presentation of the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court concluded that Morris is not mentally retarded." This Court then reviewed and thoroughly addressed Morris's argument that he was mentally retarded and that his execution was prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and held that the trial court had committed no error in determining t 2016P. In Morris v. State , 60 So.3d 326 , 339 Ala.Crim.App.2010), this Court stated: "The record indicates that a hearing was held pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002), and following the presentation of the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court concluded that Morris is not mentally retarded." This Court then reviewed and thoroughly addressed Morris's argument that he was mentally retarded and that his execution was prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and held that the trial court had committed no error in determining t | 3 | 2010–2016 |
Morris v. State
green
2 sentences2016P. In Morris v. State , 60 So.3d 326 , 339 Ala.Crim.App.2010), this Court stated: "The record indicates that a hearing was held pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002), and following the presentation of the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court concluded that Morris is not mentally retarded." This Court then reviewed and thoroughly addressed Morris's argument that he was mentally retarded and that his execution was prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and held that the trial court had committed no error in determining t 2016P. In Morris v. State , 60 So.3d 326 , 339 Ala.Crim.App.2010), this Court stated: "The record indicates that a hearing was held pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002), and following the presentation of the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court concluded that Morris is not mentally retarded." This Court then reviewed and thoroughly addressed Morris's argument that he was mentally retarded and that his execution was prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and held that the trial court had committed no error in determining t | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Ray v. State
green
1 sentence2000The record indicates that defense counsel did not object during opening arguments, and that he initially raised this issue to the trial court in his motion to dismiss and motion for a mistrial on the grounds of improper comments of the prosecution at the close of the state's case. "`[I]t was incumbent on the appellant to object to any improper conduct when first discovered.'" Ray v. State , 527 So.2d 166 , 168 n. 2 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987), quoting Woodyard v. State , 428 So.2d 136 , 137 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Woodyard v. State
green
1 sentence2000The record indicates that defense counsel did not object during opening arguments, and that he initially raised this issue to the trial court in his motion to dismiss and motion for a mistrial on the grounds of improper comments of the prosecution at the close of the state's case. "`[I]t was incumbent on the appellant to object to any improper conduct when first discovered.'" Ray v. State , 527 So.2d 166 , 168 n. 2 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987), quoting Woodyard v. State , 428 So.2d 136 , 137 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Fortner v. State
green
1 sentence1994In Fortner v. State , 582 So.2d 581 , 586 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), cert. denied, 582 So.2d 587 (Ala. 1991), this Court held that where it appeared "that defense counsel was sufficiently prepared to oppose the admission of the statements, and because counsel did, in fact, file a written motion to suppress the statements before they were introduced into evidence," the defendant had adequate notice of the State's intention to use the statement. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ex Parte Fortner
neutral
1 sentence1994In Fortner v. State , 582 So.2d 581 , 586 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), cert. denied, 582 So.2d 587 (Ala. 1991), this Court held that where it appeared "that defense counsel was sufficiently prepared to oppose the admission of the statements, and because counsel did, in fact, file a written motion to suppress the statements before they were introduced into evidence," the defendant had adequate notice of the State's intention to use the statement. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Goff v. State
green
1 sentence1991Goff v. State, 574 So.2d 1035 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.