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 1 courts 1988–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cains v. Stategreen2 sentences1990See Cains , 555 So.2d at 298 ; Briggs v. City of Huntsville , 545 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), writ quashed, 545 So.2d 171 (Ala. 1989), overruled on other grounds herein; Jemison v. State , 513 So.2d 47 , 49 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), overruled on other grounds herein. 1990Subsection (a)(2) prohibits driving while "[u]nder the influence of alcohol." Although each subsection requires different elements of proof, see Ex parte Buckner , 549 So.2d 451 (Ala. 1989), the results of a chemical test for intoxication may be introduced in a prosecution under either subsection, Frazier v. City of Montgomery , 565 So.2d 1255 , 1257 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); see Cains v. State , 555 So.2d 290 , 298 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Briggs v. City of Huntsville , 545 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), writ quashed, 545 So.2d 171 (Ala. 1989), overruled on other grounds, Frazier , 565 So.2d at 125 | 2 | 2 |
Frazier v. City of Montgomerygreen2 sentences2015Although it is not required to do so, the prosecution may, in a prosecution under (a)(2) introduce the results of a chemical test for intoxication.’ “ ‘ “Frazier v. City of Montgomery, 565 So.2d 1255 , [1257] (Ala.Cr.App.1990). “ ‘ “Thus, under subsection (a)(2), the appellant may have had to defend against the results of the blood alcohol test if the State had chosen to introduce them into evidence. 1997Although it is not required to do so, the prosecution may, in a prosecution under (a)(2) introduce the results of a chemical test for intoxication.” “ ‘Frazier v. City of Montgomery, 565 So.2d 1255 , [1257] (Ala.Cr.App.1990). “‘Thus, under subsection (a)(2), the appellant may have had to defend against the results of the blood alcohol test if the State had chosen to introduce them into evidence. | 1 | 6 |
Briggs v. City of Huntsvillegreen2 sentences2016See Cains [v. State], 555 So.2d [290,] at 298 [ (Ala.Cr.App.1989) ]; Briggs v. City of Huntsville, 545 So.2d 167, 169 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), writ quashed, 545 So.2d 171 (Ala.1989), overruled on other grounds herein; Jemison v. State, 513 So.2d 47, 49 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), overruled on other grounds herein.” Frazier v. City of Montgomery, 565 So.2d 1255, 1257 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). 1990Subsection (a)(2) prohibits driving while "[u]nder the influence of alcohol." Although each subsection requires different elements of proof, see Ex parte Buckner , 549 So.2d 451 (Ala. 1989), the results of a chemical test for intoxication may be introduced in a prosecution under either subsection, Frazier v. City of Montgomery , 565 So.2d 1255 , 1257 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); see Cains v. State , 555 So.2d 290 , 298 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Briggs v. City of Huntsville , 545 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), writ quashed, 545 So.2d 171 (Ala. 1989), overruled on other grounds, Frazier , 565 So.2d at 125 | 1 | 3 |
Jemison v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Cains [v. State], 555 So.2d [290,] at 298 [ (Ala.Cr.App.1989) ]; Briggs v. City of Huntsville, 545 So.2d 167, 169 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), writ quashed, 545 So.2d 171 (Ala.1989), overruled on other grounds herein; Jemison v. State, 513 So.2d 47, 49 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), overruled on other grounds herein.” Frazier v. City of Montgomery, 565 So.2d 1255, 1257 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). 1990Subsection (a)(2) prohibits driving while "[u]nder the influence of alcohol." Although each subsection requires different elements of proof, see Ex parte Buckner , 549 So.2d 451 (Ala. 1989), the results of a chemical test for intoxication may be introduced in a prosecution under either subsection, Frazier v. City of Montgomery , 565 So.2d 1255 , 1257 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); see Cains v. State , 555 So.2d 290 , 298 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Briggs v. City of Huntsville , 545 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), writ quashed, 545 So.2d 171 (Ala. 1989), overruled on other grounds, Frazier , 565 So.2d at 125 | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Briggs v. City of Huntsville
green
2 sentences2016See Cains [v. State], 555 So.2d [290,] at 298 [ (Ala.Cr.App.1989) ]; Briggs v. City of Huntsville, 545 So.2d 167, 169 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), writ quashed, 545 So.2d 171 (Ala.1989), overruled on other grounds herein; Jemison v. State, 513 So.2d 47, 49 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), overruled on other grounds herein.” Frazier v. City of Montgomery, 565 So.2d 1255, 1257 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). 1990Subsection (a)(2) prohibits driving while "[u]nder the influence of alcohol." Although each subsection requires different elements of proof, see Ex parte Buckner , 549 So.2d 451 (Ala. 1989), the results of a chemical test for intoxication may be introduced in a prosecution under either subsection, Frazier v. City of Montgomery , 565 So.2d 1255 , 1257 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); see Cains v. State , 555 So.2d 290 , 298 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Briggs v. City of Huntsville , 545 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), writ quashed, 545 So.2d 171 (Ala. 1989), overruled on other grounds, Frazier , 565 So.2d at 125 | 3 | 1990–2016 |
Harry v. State
green
1 sentence1998We rejected this argument in Harry v. State , 571 So.2d 392 , 393 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (the results of a chemical test for intoxication may be introduced in D.U.I. prosecution charging *Page 668 an offense under either § 32-5A-191 (a)(1) or (a)(2)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Ex Parte Mayo
green
1 sentence1995However, 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 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ex Parte Buckner
green
1 sentence1990Subsection (a)(2) prohibits driving while "[u]nder the influence of alcohol." Although each subsection requires different elements of proof, see Ex parte Buckner , 549 So.2d 451 (Ala. 1989), the results of a chemical test for intoxication may be introduced in a prosecution under either subsection, Frazier v. City of Montgomery , 565 So.2d 1255 , 1257 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); see Cains v. State , 555 So.2d 290 , 298 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Briggs v. City of Huntsville , 545 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), writ quashed, 545 So.2d 171 (Ala. 1989), overruled on other grounds, Frazier , 565 So.2d at 125 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Hays v. City of Jacksonville
green
1 sentence1988This case must be affirmed on authority of Hays v. City of Jacksonville, 518 So.2d 892 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.