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.
10 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1981–1999 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 |
|---|---|---|
Aycock v. Martinezgreen2 sentences1999This Court, in Kent (cited in the majority’s no-opinion memorandum), discussed the requirements necessary for the admission of blood-alcohol test results pursuant to general evidence principles: “ ‘While we find no Alabama cases which specifically outline all the requisite elements of a predicate for the admission of scientific test results, it is generally held that such a predicate must show that the circumstances of the taking of the sample, the identification, maintenance, and transporting of it, and the testing itself are scientifically acceptable and reasonably expected to produce result 1994In Aycock v. Martinez, 432 So.2d 1274, 1277 (Ala.1983), this Court stated: “While we find no Alabama cases which specifically outline all the requisite elements of a predicate for the admission of scientific test results, it is generally held that such a predicate must show that the circumstances of the taking of the sample, the identification, maintenance, and transporting of it, and the testing itself are scientifically acceptable and reasonably expected to produce results which are accurate and reliable. | 4 | 6 |
Kent v. Singletongreen2 sentences1999This Court, in Kent (cited in the majority’s no-opinion memorandum), discussed the requirements necessary for the admission of blood-alcohol test results pursuant to general evidence principles: “ ‘While we find no Alabama cases which specifically outline all the requisite elements of a predicate for the admission of scientific test results, it is generally held that such a predicate must show that the circumstances of the taking of the sample, the identification, maintenance, and transporting of it, and the testing itself are scientifically acceptable and reasonably expected to produce result 1994See, e.g., 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, [§] 830 (1967).” This formulation was applied in Kent v. Singleton, 457 So.2d 356, 359 (Ala.1984). | 3 | 4 |
McDaniel v. Stategreen1 sentence1990See, e.g., 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence , 830 (1967).' " Kent [ v. Singleton , 457 So.2d 356 , 359 (Ala. 1984)] (quoting from Aycock v. Martinez , 432 So.2d 1274 , 1277 (Ala. 1983))." McDaniel v. State , 506 So.2d 360 , 364-65 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Dolvingreen1 sentence1990See also, Ex parte Dolvin , 391 So.2d 677 , 679 (Ala. 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mayo v. City of Madison
green
2 sentences1997We again must note that Ex parte Mayo , 652 So.2d 201 , 208 (Ala. 1994), held that the State could establish a predicate for the admission of the blood alcohol tests through traditional evidentiary rules for the admission of scientific test results in lieu of proving strict compliance with § 32-5A-194 . 1995However, the Court in Mayo also held that the appellant’s conviction should not be reversed because “the results of a chemical test for intoxication may still be admitted if the prosecution establishes a sufficient predicate under traditional evidentiary rules for the admission of scientific test results.” Mayo, 652 So.2d at 209 . | 2 | 1995–1997 |
Bush v. City of Troy
green
1 sentence1992The Alabama Supreme Court has interpreted the statute governing blood, urine, breath and body specimens, offered to show alcohol or controlled substances, as prescribing the following steps in laying the predicate for admissibility. [§ 32-5-194 , Code of Alabama 1975, see Ex parte Bush , 474 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1985)]. . . . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
McGough v. Slaughter
green
1 sentence1981The burden of laying the predicate generally necessary for the admission of scientific test results is extensive, McGough , supra. With these principles in mind, we must now look to the record to see how the State attempted to meet its burden of proof under general rules of evidence. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.