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 2 courts 2003–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knotts v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Gamble, [McElroy's] Alabama Evidence § 401(b). "[A] fact is admissible against a relevancy challenge if it has any probative value, however[] slight, upon a matter in the case." 10 CR-2024-0581 Knotts v. State, 686 So. 2d 431, 468 (Ala. Crim. 2025Under that liberal standard, evidence is ' "admissible against a relevancy challenge if it has any probative value, however[] slight, upon a matter in the case." ' Gavin, 891 So. 2d at 964 (quoting Knotts v. State, 686 So. 2d 431, 468 (Ala. Crim. | 9 | 10 |
Draper v. Stategreen2 sentences2026App. 1995), aff'd, 686 So. 2d 486 (Ala. 1996).' "Draper v. State, 886 So. 2d 105 , 119 (Ala. Crim. 2016Gamble, [McElroy’s] Alabama Evidence § 401(b). ‘[A] fact is admissible against a relevancy challenge if it has any probative value, however[] slight, upon a matter in the case.’ Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 468 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala.1996).” Draper v. State, 886 So.2d 105, 119 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). | 1 | 2 |
Gavin v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Under that liberal standard, evidence is ' "admissible against a relevancy challenge if it has any probative value, however[] slight, upon a matter in the case." ' Gavin, 891 So. 2d at 964 (quoting Knotts v. State, 686 So. 2d 431, 468 (Ala. Crim. 2010Relevant evidence should be excluded only ‘if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.’ ” Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907, 963-64 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“Any indications of conscious guilt arising from the conduct, demeanor, or expressions of an accused are legal evidence against him. ‘The law can never limit the number or kind of such indications.’ Johnson v. State, 17 Ala. 618, 624 (1850). ‘The number of such indications is impossible to limit, nor can their nature or character be defined.’ McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154, 159 (1878).” Conley v. State, 354 So.2d 1172, 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1977) “Whenever a person is on trial for a criminal offense, evidence of the defendant’s post-crime conduct that may fairly be inferred to have been influenced | 1 | 1 |
McAdory v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“Any indications of conscious guilt arising from the conduct, demeanor, or expressions of an accused are legal evidence against him. ‘The law can never limit the number or kind of such indications.’ Johnson v. State, 17 Ala. 618, 624 (1850). ‘The number of such indications is impossible to limit, nor can their nature or character be defined.’ McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154, 159 (1878).” Conley v. State, 354 So.2d 1172, 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1977) “Whenever a person is on trial for a criminal offense, evidence of the defendant’s post-crime conduct that may fairly be inferred to have been influenced | 1 | 1 |
Hayes v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Evid: “Alabama recognizes a liberal test of relevancy....” Hayes v. State, 717 So.2d 30, 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). “[A] fact is admissible against a relevancy challenge if it has any probative value, however slight, upon a matter in the case.” Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 468 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Conley v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“Any indications of conscious guilt arising from the conduct, demeanor, or expressions of an accused are legal evidence against him. ‘The law can never limit the number or kind of such indications.’ Johnson v. State, 17 Ala. 618, 624 (1850). ‘The number of such indications is impossible to limit, nor can their nature or character be defined.’ McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154, 159 (1878).” Conley v. State, 354 So.2d 1172, 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1977) “Whenever a person is on trial for a criminal offense, evidence of the defendant’s post-crime conduct that may fairly be inferred to have been influenced | 1 | 1 |
Spicer v. Stategreen2 sentences2003We agree with the State that the collateral-act evidence in this case was, under Alabama's liberal test of relevancy, relevant to show Draper's motive. "`Motive is defined as "an inducement, or that which leads or tempts the mind to do or commit the crime charged." Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9, 11 , 65 So. 972, 977 (1914). 2003We agree with the State that the collateral-act evidence in this case was, under Alabama's liberal test of relevancy, relevant to show Draper's motive. "`Motive is defined as "an inducement, or that which leads or tempts the mind to do or commit the crime charged." Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9, 11 , 65 So. 972, 977 (1914). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Knotts
green
2 sentences2016Gamble, [McElroy’s] Alabama Evidence § 401(b). ‘[A] fact is admissible against a relevancy challenge if it has any probative value, however[] slight, upon a matter in the case.’ Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 468 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala.1996).” Draper v. State, 886 So.2d 105, 119 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). 2010Gamble, Gamble’s Alabama Evidence § 401(b). ‘[A] fact is admissible against a relevancy challenge if it has any probative value, however[ ] slight, upon a matter in the case.’ Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 468 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala.1996). | 8 | 2003–2026 |
Bradley v. State
green
1 sentence2016Because the question of the admissibility of collateral-act evidence is whether the evidence is relevant for a limited purpose other than bad character, “the list of traditionally recognized exceptions [to the exclusionary rule] is not exhaustive and fixed.” Bradley, 577 So.2d at 547 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ex Parte Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005According to our supreme court, "[a] movant meets the relevancy requirement of Rule 35(a) by showing that the results of the requested examination will tend to make the existence of a fact at issue more, or will make it less, probable." Id. at 297 . 2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.