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.
8 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sharifi v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Sharifi v. State, 993 So. 2d 907, 943-44 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Kult v. Kellygreen1 sentence2016See Kult v. Kelly, 987 So.2d 551, 557 (Ala.2007) (explaining that if a charge on a particular claim is not given to the jury and the parties do not object before the jury begins deliberations, the omitted claim has been waived). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snider v. State
green
1 sentence1983We previously held in Craft v. State, 402 So.2d 1135 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), that: “The remedy for supplying a pertinent principle of law omitted from the court’s oral charge is to submit a written charge which supplies the omitted principle.” Snider v. State, 406 So.2d 1008 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 406 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Ex Parte Snider
neutral
1 sentence1983We previously held in Craft v. State, 402 So.2d 1135 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), that: “The remedy for supplying a pertinent principle of law omitted from the court’s oral charge is to submit a written charge which supplies the omitted principle.” Snider v. State, 406 So.2d 1008 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 406 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Craft v. State
green
1 sentence1983We previously held in Craft v. State, 402 So.2d 1135 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), that: “The remedy for supplying a pertinent principle of law omitted from the court’s oral charge is to submit a written charge which supplies the omitted principle.” Snider v. State, 406 So.2d 1008 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 406 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Shiflett v. State
neutral
1 sentence1981Gray v. State , 52 Ala. App. 48 , 294 So.2d 448 ; Thigpen v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 369 So.2d 291 , writ denied, Ala., 369 So.2d 297 . "[W]here a party desires the court to extend its oral charge to cover some applicable law in the trial of a case, his remedy is to request a written charge on the subject, which if refused would protect the record and present the matter to the Appellate Courts. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Howell v. State
neutral
1 sentence1981Gray v. State , 52 Ala. App. 48 , 294 So.2d 448 ; Thigpen v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 369 So.2d 291 , writ denied, Ala., 369 So.2d 297 . "[W]here a party desires the court to extend its oral charge to cover some applicable law in the trial of a case, his remedy is to request a written charge on the subject, which if refused would protect the record and present the matter to the Appellate Courts. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Thigpen v. State
neutral
1 sentence1981Gray v. State , 52 Ala. App. 48 , 294 So.2d 448 ; Thigpen v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 369 So.2d 291 , writ denied, Ala., 369 So.2d 297 . "[W]here a party desires the court to extend its oral charge to cover some applicable law in the trial of a case, his remedy is to request a written charge on the subject, which if refused would protect the record and present the matter to the Appellate Courts. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences1976Rather, counsel must submit written instructions covering the omitted principle in order to preserve the alleged error for appellant review." See also: Reed v. State , 55 Ala. App. 138 , 313 So.2d 564 . 1976Rather, counsel must submit written instructions covering the omitted principle in order to preserve the alleged error for appellant review." See also: Reed v. State , 55 Ala. App. 138 , 313 So.2d 564 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Pinkerton v. State
neutral
2 sentences1975As to this, defendant did more than was done by defendant in Pinkerton v. State, 246 Ala. 540 , 22 So.2d 113 , wherein it was held that it was error to reverse for the trial court to instruct a jury that false testimony of a witness authorized the jury in its discretion to disregard the remainder of his testimony, in view of the rule that the jury would not be authorized to do so unless the testimony was willfully false as to a material matter. 1975As to this, defendant did more than was done by defendant in Pinkerton v. State, 246 Ala. 540 , 22 So.2d 113 , wherein it was held that it was error to reverse for the trial court to instruct a jury that false testimony of a witness authorized the jury in its discretion to disregard the remainder of his testimony, in view of the rule that the jury would not be authorized to do so unless the testimony was willfully false as to a material matter. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Waller v. State
neutral
2 sentences1974Waller v. State, 35 Ala. App. 511 , 49 So.2d 232 , and authorities therein cited. 1974Waller v. State, 35 Ala. App. 511 , 49 So.2d 232 , and authorities therein cited. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Patton v. State
neutral
2 sentences1974Stokley v. State, supra; Patton v. State, 39 Ala.App. 308 , 98 So.2d 621 . 1974Stokley v. State, supra; Patton v. State, 39 Ala.App. 308 , 98 So.2d 621 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.