80 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1924–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See also Reynolds v. City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 822, 824 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (‘“[T]he ruling of the trial judge denying a motion for new trial will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.” ’ (quoting Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 870, 875 (Ala.Crim.App.1977))).” Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d 1257, 1259 (Ala.2010). 2013See also Reynolds v. City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 822, 824 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (‘ “[T]he ruling of the trial judge denying a motion for new trial will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.” ’(quoting Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 870, 875 (Ala.Crim.App.1977))).” Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d at 1259 . | 7 | 10 |
Reynolds v. City of Birminghamgreen2 sentences2015See also Reynolds v. City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 822, 824 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (‘“[T]he ruling of the trial judge denying a motion for new trial will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.” ’ (quoting Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 870, 875 (Ala.Crim.App.1977))).” Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d 1257, 1259 (Ala.2010). 2013See also Reynolds v. City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 822, 824 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (‘ “[T]he ruling of the trial judge denying a motion for new trial will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.” ’(quoting Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 870, 875 (Ala.Crim.App.1977))).” Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d at 1259 . | 6 | 7 |
Isom v. Stategreen2 sentences2008The trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of the new evidence.'" Ex parte Heaton, 542 So.2d 931, 933 (Ala. 1989), quoting Isom v. State, 497 So.2d 208, 212 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). "`To establish a right to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the [appellant] must show the following: (1) that the evidence will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) that the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) that it is material to the issue; and (5) t 2008The trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of the new evidence.’ ” Ex parte Heaton, 542 So.2d 931, 933 (Ala.1989), quoting Isom v. State, 497 So.2d 208, 212 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). “ ‘To establish a right to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the [appellant] must show the following: (1) that the evidence will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) that the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) that it is material to the issue; and (5) | 4 | 7 |
Brownlee v. Stategreen2 sentences2008As to the standard of review, I am aware that "`[i]t is well settled that "[a] decision on a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and [that] in reviewing such a decision this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness thereof. . . ." A trial judge's denial of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed [on appeal] in the absence of a showing of [an] abuse of discretion.'` Sistrunk v. State , 630 So.2d 147 , 154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (citing Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 , 164 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd. 1997(R. 280, 342, 344.) "It is well settled that '[a] decision on a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and [that] in reviewing such a decision this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness thereof.' . . . 'A trial judge's denial of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed [on appeal] in the absence of a showing of [an] abuse of discretion.' " Sistrunk v. State , 630 So.2d 147 , 154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (citing Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 , 164 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) aff'd Ex parte Brownlee , 545 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1989), cert. de | 2 | 8 |
Lane v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Ex parte Brownlee , 545 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, Brownlee v. Alabama , 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989))." Lane v. State , 708 So.2d 206 , 210 (Ala. Crim.App. 1997). 2008“A trial judge’s denial of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed [on appeal] in the absence of a showing of [an] abuse of discretion.” ’ Sistrunk v. State, 630 So.2d 147, 154 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) (citing Brownlee v. State, 545 So.2d 151, 164 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, Ex parte Brownlee, 545 So.2d 166 (Ala.1989), ce rt. denied, Brownlee v. Alabama, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989)).” Lane v. State, 708 So.2d 206, 210 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). | 2 | 3 |
Dixon v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See also Reynolds v. City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 822, 824 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (‘“[T]he ruling of the trial judge denying a motion for new trial will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.” ’ (quoting Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 870, 875 (Ala.Crim.App.1977))).” Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d 1257, 1259 (Ala.2010). 2013See also Reynolds v. City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 822, 824 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (‘ “[T]he ruling of the trial judge denying a motion for new trial will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.” ’(quoting Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 870, 875 (Ala.Crim.App.1977))).” Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d at 1259 . | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Heatongreen2 sentences1993Ex parte Heaton, 542 So.2d 931 (Ala.1989). ‘While all five requirements ordinarily must be met, the law has recognized that in certain exceptional circumstances, even if the newly discovered evidence is cumulative or impeaching, if it appears probable from looking at the entire case that the new evidence would change the result, then a new trial should be granted.’ Ex parte Heaton, 542 So.2d at 933 . “ ‘ “The appellate courts look with disfavor on motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence and the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion.” Fur 1993Ex parte Heaton, 542 So.2d 931 (Ala.1989). ‘While all five requirements ordinarily must be met, the law has recognized that in certain exceptional circumstances, even if the newly discovered evidence is cumulative or impeaching, if it appears probable from looking at the entire case that the new evidence would change the result, then a new trial should be granted.’ Ex parte Heaton, 542 So.2d at 933 . “ ‘ “The appellate courts look with disfavor on motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence and the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion.” Fur | 1 | 5 |
Sistrunk v. Stategreen2 sentences2008As to the standard of review, I am aware that "`[i]t is well settled that "[a] decision on a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and [that] in reviewing such a decision this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness thereof. . . ." A trial judge's denial of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed [on appeal] in the absence of a showing of [an] abuse of discretion.'` Sistrunk v. State , 630 So.2d 147 , 154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (citing Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 , 164 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd. 1997(R. 280, 342, 344.) "It is well settled that '[a] decision on a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and [that] in reviewing such a decision this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness thereof.' . . . 'A trial judge's denial of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed [on appeal] in the absence of a showing of [an] abuse of discretion.' " Sistrunk v. State , 630 So.2d 147 , 154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (citing Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 , 164 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) aff'd Ex parte Brownlee , 545 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1989), cert. de | 1 | 4 |
Troha v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Moreover, the decision of the trial judge to deny a motion for new trial will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion, and ‘this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.’ Troha v. State, 462 So.2d 950, 952 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed, Ex parte Troha, 462 So.2d 953 (Ala.1984), on remand, 462 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). 1990Moreover, the decision of the trial judge to deny a motion for new trial will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion, and 'this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.' Troha v. State , 462 So.2d 950 , 952 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed, Ex parte Troha , 462 So.2d 953 (Ala. 1984), on remand , 462 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). | 1 | 4 |
| Nichols v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Ex Parte Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anderson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hallmark v. Allisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Apicellagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dawson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Whitten v. Allstate Ins. Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Miles v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ashley v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smiley v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Estellegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cheatham v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gass 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. State
green
2 sentences1975In Moore v. State, 52 Ala.App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 , we read: “In reviewing the refusal of a motion for a new trial this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge and the decision thereon rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court.” We are convinced that the trial court was correct in denying the motion. 1975In Moore v. State, 52 Ala.App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 , we read: “In reviewing the refusal of a motion for a new trial this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge and the decision thereon rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court.” We are convinced that the trial court was correct in denying the motion. | 19 | 1975–1978 |
Espey v. State
green
2 sentences1978Espey v. State , 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Owens v. State , 40 Ala. App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 ; Moore v. State , 52 Ala. App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 ; Jones v. State, supra. [ 54 Ala. App. 251 , 307 So.2d 59 ]" Before the evidence commenced and while counsel for the prosecution was stating its case to the jury, the following occurred: "MR. 1978Espey v. State , 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Owens v. State , 40 Ala. App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 ; Moore v. State , 52 Ala. App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 ; Jones v. State, supra. [ 54 Ala. App. 251 , 307 So.2d 59 ]" Before the evidence commenced and while counsel for the prosecution was stating its case to the jury, the following occurred: "MR. | 11 | 1974–1978 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences1977Clark v. State, 54 Ala.App. 217 , 307 So.2d 28 ; Johnson v. State, 51 Ala.App. 172 , 283 So.2d 624 . 1977Clark v. State, 54 Ala.App. 217 , 307 So.2d 28 ; Johnson v. State, 51 Ala.App. 172 , 283 So.2d 624 . | 11 | 1976–1977 |
Ex Parte Brownlee
green
2 sentences1997(R. 280, 342, 344.) "It is well settled that '[a] decision on a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and [that] in reviewing such a decision this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness thereof.' . . . 'A trial judge's denial of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed [on appeal] in the absence of a showing of [an] abuse of discretion.' " Sistrunk v. State , 630 So.2d 147 , 154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (citing Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 , 164 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) aff'd Ex parte Brownlee , 545 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1989), cert. de 1993It is well settled that "[a] decision on a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and [that] in reviewing such a decision this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness thereof." Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 , 164 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), affirmed, 545 So.2d 166 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989). | 8 | 1991–2008 |
Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1997(R. 280, 342, 344.) "It is well settled that '[a] decision on a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and [that] in reviewing such a decision this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness thereof.' . . . 'A trial judge's denial of a motion for new trial will not be disturbed [on appeal] in the absence of a showing of [an] abuse of discretion.' " Sistrunk v. State , 630 So.2d 147 , 154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (citing Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 , 164 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) aff'd Ex parte Brownlee , 545 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1989), cert. de 1993It is well settled that "[a] decision on a motion for a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and [that] in reviewing such a decision this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness thereof." Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 , 164 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), affirmed, 545 So.2d 166 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989). | 7 | 1992–2008 |
Clark v. State
neutral
2 sentences1977Clark v. State, 54 Ala. App. 217 , 307 So.2d 28 ; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217 , 100 So.2d 750 . 1977Clark v. State, 54 Ala. App. 217 , 307 So.2d 28 ; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217 , 100 So.2d 750 . | 7 | 1976–1977 |
Baker v. State
green
2 sentences1995Baker v. State , 477 So.2d 496 , 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1029 , 106 S.Ct. 1231 , 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986)." Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989). 1988Baker v. State , 477 So.2d 496 , 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), cert. denied , 475 U.S. 1029 , 106 S.Ct. 1231 , 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986). | 5 | 1986–1995 |
Walter v. Torres
green
2 sentences1995Baker v. State , 477 So.2d 496 , 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1029 , 106 S.Ct. 1231 , 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986)." Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989). 1995Baker v. State , 477 So.2d 496 , 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1029 , 106 S.Ct. 1231 , 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986)." Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989). | 5 | 1986–1995 |
Troha v. State
neutral
2 sentences1990Moreover, the decision of the trial judge to deny a motion for new trial will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion, and ‘this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.’ Troha v. State, 462 So.2d 950, 952 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed, Ex parte Troha, 462 So.2d 953 (Ala.1984), on remand, 462 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). 1990Moreover, the decision of the trial judge to deny a motion for new trial will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion, and 'this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.' Troha v. State , 462 So.2d 950 , 952 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed, Ex parte Troha , 462 So.2d 953 (Ala. 1984), on remand , 462 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). | 5 | 1986–1990 |
Owens v. State
neutral
2 sentences1978Espey v. State , 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Owens v. State , 40 Ala. App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 ; Moore v. State , 52 Ala. App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 ; Jones v. State, supra. [ 54 Ala. App. 251 , 307 So.2d 59 ]" Before the evidence commenced and while counsel for the prosecution was stating its case to the jury, the following occurred: "MR. 1978Espey v. State , 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Owens v. State , 40 Ala. App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 ; Moore v. State , 52 Ala. App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 ; Jones v. State, supra. [ 54 Ala. App. 251 , 307 So.2d 59 ]" Before the evidence commenced and while counsel for the prosecution was stating its case to the jury, the following occurred: "MR. | 5 | 1975–1978 |
Ofarril v. United States
green
2 sentences1995Baker v. State , 477 So.2d 496 , 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1029 , 106 S.Ct. 1231 , 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986)." Brownlee v. State , 545 So.2d 151 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989). 1988Baker v. State , 477 So.2d 496 , 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), cert. denied , 475 U.S. 1029 , 106 S.Ct. 1231 , 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986). | 4 | 1987–1995 |
Vinzant v. State
green
2 sentences1991Vinzant v. State , 462 So.2d 1037 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). 1987Baker v. State, 477 So.2d 496 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), cert. denied, Baker v. Alabama, 475 U.S. 1029 , 106 S.Ct. 1231 , 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986); Vinzant v. State, 462 So.2d 1037 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Leverett v. State, 462 So.2d 972 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). | 4 | 1986–1991 |
Ex Parte Troha
green
2 sentences1990Moreover, the decision of the trial judge to deny a motion for new trial will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion, and ‘this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.’ Troha v. State, 462 So.2d 950, 952 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed, Ex parte Troha, 462 So.2d 953 (Ala.1984), on remand, 462 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). 1990Moreover, the decision of the trial judge to deny a motion for new trial will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion, and 'this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.' Troha v. State , 462 So.2d 950 , 952 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed, Ex parte Troha , 462 So.2d 953 (Ala. 1984), on remand , 462 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). | 4 | 1986–1990 |
Jones v. City of Opelika
green
2 sentences1977Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416 , 7 So.2d 579 ; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 . 1975Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416 , 7 So.2d 579 ; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Page v. State, 41 Ala.App. 153 , 130 So.2d 220 ; Moore v. State, Ala.App., 290 So.2d 246 (1974); Owens v. State, 40 Ala.App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 . | 4 | 1974–1977 |
Heath v. State
green
2 sentences1977Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416 , 7 So.2d 579 ; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 . 1975Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416 , 7 So.2d 579 ; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Page v. State, 41 Ala.App. 153 , 130 So.2d 220 ; Moore v. State, Ala.App., 290 So.2d 246 (1974); Owens v. State, 40 Ala.App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 . | 4 | 1974–1977 |
Page v. State
green
2 sentences1975Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416 , 7 So.2d 579 ; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Page v. State, 41 Ala.App. 153 , 130 So.2d 220 ; Moore v. State, Ala.App., 290 So.2d 246 (1974); Owens v. State, 40 Ala.App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 . 1975Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Page v. State, 4- Ala.App. 153, 130 So.2d 220 ; Owens v. State, 40 Ala.App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 ; Moore v. State, 52 Ala.App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 (1974). | 4 | 1974–1975 |
Ex Parte Hall
green
2 sentences2000Furthermore, "'[t]he ruling of the trial judge denying a motion for new trial will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.'" Reynolds v. City of Birmingham , 723 So.2d 822 , 824 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998) (quoting Hall v. State , 348 So.2d 870 , 875 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 875 (Ala. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021 , 98 S.Ct. 745 , 54 L.Ed.2d 768 (1978)). 1986Baker v. State , 477 So.2d 496 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), *Page 837 cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1231 , 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986); Hall v. State , 348 So.2d 870 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 348 So.2d 875 (Ala. 1977), cert. denied , 434 U.S. 1021 , 98 S.Ct. 745 , 54 L.Ed.2d 768 (1978). "`[W]here the trial court investigates the circumstances under which the remark was made, its substance, and determines that the rights of the appellant were not prejudiced by the remark, reversible error will not be found absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion.'" Bascom v. State , 344 So.2d 218 , | 3 | 1984–2000 |
Perry v. State
green
2 sentences1990Perry v. State, 455 So.2d 999 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).” Nichols v. State, 500 So.2d 92, 96 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). 1986Moreover, the decision of the trial judge to deny a motion for a new trial will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion, and "this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling." Troha v. State , 462 So.2d 950 , 952 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed, Ex parte Troha , 462 So.2d 953 (Ala. 1984), on remand , 462 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Perry v. State , 455 So.2d 999 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). | 3 | 1986–1990 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1984Smith , supra. Our consideration of the issues raised on appeal convinces us that the judgment of the circuit court is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed. 1983"In reviewing the denial of a motion for new trial, this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the ruling of the trial court." Smith v. State , 393 So.2d 529 , 532 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981). | 3 | 1983–1984 |
Jones v. State
neutral
2 sentences1978Espey v. State , 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Owens v. State , 40 Ala. App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 ; Moore v. State , 52 Ala. App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 ; Jones v. State, supra. [ 54 Ala. App. 251 , 307 So.2d 59 ]" Before the evidence commenced and while counsel for the prosecution was stating its case to the jury, the following occurred: "MR. 1978Espey v. State , 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Owens v. State , 40 Ala. App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 ; Moore v. State , 52 Ala. App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 ; Jones v. State, supra. [ 54 Ala. App. 251 , 307 So.2d 59 ]" Before the evidence commenced and while counsel for the prosecution was stating its case to the jury, the following occurred: "MR. | 3 | 1975–1978 |
Agricola v. Wimberly & Thomas Hardware Co.
neutral
2 sentences1975Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416 , 7 So.2d 579 ; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Page v. State, 41 Ala.App. 153 , 130 So.2d 220 ; Moore v. State, Ala.App., 290 So.2d 246 (1974); Owens v. State, 40 Ala.App. 36 , 109 So.2d 141 . 1975Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416 , 7 So.2d 579 ; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669 , 120 So.2d 904 ; Page v. State, 41 Ala.App. 153, 130 So.2d 220 ; Moore v. State, 52 Ala.App. 179 , 290 So.2d 246 . | 3 | 1974–1975 |
| Vasarab v. Jago green | 2 | 1986–2000 |
| Holt v. United States green | 2 | 1986–2000 |
| Ford v. United States green | 2 | 1986–2000 |
| Pace v. State green | 2 | 1989–1997 |
| Ballard v. State neutral | 2 | 1989–1997 |
| Leverett v. State green | 2 | 1987–1993 |
| Moore v. State green | 2 | 1985–1993 |
| Moore v. Alabama green | 2 | 1985–1993 |
| International Woodworkers Local 3-261 v. Kuhn green | 2 | 1985–1993 |
| Ward v. State green | 2 | 1985–1986 |
| Bascom v. State green | 2 | 1984–1986 |
| Jones v. State green | 2 | 1981–1984 |
| Williams v. State green | 2 | 1981–1984 |
| Crowe v. State neutral | 2 | 1977–1984 |
| Parks v. State green | 2 | 1977–1984 |
| Hamm v. State neutral | 2 | 1976–1977 |
| Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hosp. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Davis v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Gress v. Michigan green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.