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.
9 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2011As this court stated in Burgin, ‘“[i]t would be an abuse of the rule ... for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows will] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence.” ’ Id.” Smith v. State, 745 So.2d 922, 935 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). 2010As this court stated in Bur-gin, “' [i]t would be an abuse of the rule ... for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows will] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence.’ ” Id.’ “Smith v. State, 745 So.2d 922, 935 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).” 86 So.3d at 1109-10 . | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Clinton Webstergreen2 sentences2002Id.’ “United States v. Gilbert, 57 F.3d 709, 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1110 , 115 S.Ct. 2264 , 132 L.Ed.2d 269 (1995). ‘It would be an abuse of the rule ... for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows mil] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence ....’ United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1192 (7th Cir.1984). 2000Citing Federal caselaw concerning the interpretation of *Page 996 Rule 607 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court in Burgin v. State , 747 So.2d 916 (Ala.Cr.App. 1999), stated: "`It would be an abuse of the rule . . . for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows will] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence. . . .' United States v. Webster , 734 F.2d 1191 , 1192 (7th Cir. 1984). | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Vinny Gilbertgreen1 sentence2002Id.’ “United States v. Gilbert, 57 F.3d 709, 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1110 , 115 S.Ct. 2264 , 132 L.Ed.2d 269 (1995). ‘It would be an abuse of the rule ... for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows mil] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence ....’ United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1192 (7th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oliveras-Perez v. United States
green
2 sentences2015As this court stated in Burgin, ‘“[i]t would be an abuse of the rule ... for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knoivs will] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction beUoeen impeachment and substantive evidence.” ’ Id. 2002Id.’ “United States v. Gilbert, 57 F.3d 709, 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1110 , 115 S.Ct. 2264 , 132 L.Ed.2d 269 (1995). ‘It would be an abuse of the rule ... for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows mil] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence ....’ United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1192 (7th Cir.1984). | 3 | 1999–2015 |
Lindley v. State
green
1 sentence2011Garlington’s and Jackson’s statements to police were not admissible as substantive evidence, but were only admissible as impeachment evidence to show that Garlington and Jackson were not “worthy of belief.” See Lindley v. State, 728 So.2d 1153 (Ala.1998) (holding that where a nonparty witness denied making a prior statement, the statement may not be shown by the testimony of other witnesses). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Vincent Martez Trawick v. State of Alabama.
green
1 sentence2010As this court stated in Bur-gin, “' [i]t would be an abuse of the rule ... for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows will] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence.’ ” Id.’ “Smith v. State, 745 So.2d 922, 935 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).” 86 So.3d at 1109-10 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Gilbert v. United States
neutral
1 sentence2002Id.’ “United States v. Gilbert, 57 F.3d 709, 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1110 , 115 S.Ct. 2264 , 132 L.Ed.2d 269 (1995). ‘It would be an abuse of the rule ... for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows mil] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence ....’ United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1192 (7th Cir.1984). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Gilbert v. United States
neutral
1 sentence2002Id.’ “United States v. Gilbert, 57 F.3d 709, 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1110 , 115 S.Ct. 2264 , 132 L.Ed.2d 269 (1995). ‘It would be an abuse of the rule ... for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows mil] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence ....’ United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1192 (7th Cir.1984). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Burgin v. State
green
2 sentences2000Citing Federal caselaw concerning the interpretation of *Page 996 Rule 607 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court in Burgin v. State , 747 So.2d 916 (Ala.Cr.App. 1999), stated: "`It would be an abuse of the rule . . . for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows will] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence. . . .' United States v. Webster , 734 F.2d 1191 , 1192 (7th Cir. 1984). 2000Citing Federal caselaw concerning the interpretation of *Page 996 Rule 607 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court in Burgin v. State , 747 So.2d 916 (Ala.Cr.App. 1999), stated: "`It would be an abuse of the rule . . . for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows will] not give it useful evidence, just so it [can] introduce hearsay evidence against the defendant in the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence. . . .' United States v. Webster , 734 F.2d 1191 , 1192 (7th Cir. 1984). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Frost v. State
green
2 sentences1968Grissett v. State, 241 Ala. 343 , 2 So.2d 399 , and cases cited; Frost v. State, 225 Ala. 232 , 142 So. 427 . 1968Grissett v. State, 241 Ala. 343 , 2 So.2d 399 , and cases cited; Frost v. State, 225 Ala. 232 , 142 So. 427 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Grissett v. State
green
2 sentences1968Grissett v. State, 241 Ala. 343 , 2 So.2d 399 , and cases cited; Frost v. State, 225 Ala. 232 , 142 So. 427 . 1968Grissett v. State, 241 Ala. 343 , 2 So.2d 399 , and cases cited; Frost v. State, 225 Ala. 232 , 142 So. 427 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Olden v. State
neutral
2 sentences1941Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6 , 58 So. 307 ; Ex parte State ex rel Davis (Tyler v. State), 210 Ala. 96 , 97 So. 573 ; Floyd v. State, 22 Ala.App. 347 , 116 So. 318 , certiorari denied, 217 Ala. 326 , 116 So. 320 . 1941Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6 , 58 So. 307 ; Ex parte State ex rel Davis (Tyler v. State), 210 Ala. 96 , 97 So. 573 ; Floyd v. State, 22 Ala.App. 347 , 116 So. 318 , certiorari denied, 217 Ala. 326 , 116 So. 320 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Floyd v. State
neutral
2 sentences1941Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6 , 58 So. 307 ; Ex parte State ex rel Davis (Tyler v. State), 210 Ala. 96 , 97 So. 573 ; Floyd v. State, 22 Ala.App. 347 , 116 So. 318 , certiorari denied, 217 Ala. 326 , 116 So. 320 . 1941Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6 , 58 So. 307 ; Ex parte State ex rel Davis (Tyler v. State), 210 Ala. 96 , 97 So. 573 ; Floyd v. State, 22 Ala.App. 347 , 116 So. 318 , certiorari denied, 217 Ala. 326 , 116 So. 320 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Tyler v. State
green
2 sentences1941Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6 , 58 So. 307 ; Ex parte State ex rel Davis (Tyler v. State), 210 Ala. 96 , 97 So. 573 ; Floyd v. State, 22 Ala.App. 347 , 116 So. 318 , certiorari denied, 217 Ala. 326 , 116 So. 320 . 1941Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6 , 58 So. 307 ; Ex parte State ex rel Davis (Tyler v. State), 210 Ala. 96 , 97 So. 573 ; Floyd v. State, 22 Ala.App. 347 , 116 So. 318 , certiorari denied, 217 Ala. 326 , 116 So. 320 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Floyd v. State
neutral
2 sentences1941Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6 , 58 So. 307 ; Ex parte State ex rel Davis (Tyler v. State), 210 Ala. 96 , 97 So. 573 ; Floyd v. State, 22 Ala.App. 347 , 116 So. 318 , certiorari denied, 217 Ala. 326 , 116 So. 320 . 1941Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6 , 58 So. 307 ; Ex parte State ex rel Davis (Tyler v. State), 210 Ala. 96 , 97 So. 573 ; Floyd v. State, 22 Ala.App. 347 , 116 So. 318 , certiorari denied, 217 Ala. 326 , 116 So. 320 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
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.