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 1 courts 1976–2000 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morton v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Morton v. State 338 So.2d 423, 425 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 338 So.2d 428 (Ala.1976); Conley [v. State, 354 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Cr.App.1977) ]'" Harris v. State, 632 So.2d 503, 524 (Ala.Cr. 1992Smith v. State , 8 Ala. App. 187 , 62 So. 575 (1913)." Morton v. State , 338 So.2d 423 , 425 (Ala.Cr.App.) cert. denied, 338 So.2d 428 (Ala. 1976). | 4 | 5 |
Nance v. Stategreen2 sentences1987While it is preferable that the testimony of a co-conspirator or hearsay testimony concerning the acts and statements of a co-conspirator be received into evidence after a prima facie showing of the existence of a conspiracy, such order of proof is not mandatory. 'The order of proof requirement is for the purpose of expediting the trial and saving the valuable time of the trial court, rather than protecting or securing any supposed right a defendant might have.' Nance v. State , 424 So.2d 1358 , 1365 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Snoddy v. State , 20 Ala. App. 168 , 101 So. 303 (1924); Smith v. State , 1983"The order of proof requirement is for the purpose of expediting the trial and saving the valuable time of the trial court, rather than protecting or securing any supposed right a defendant might have." Nance v. State , 424 So.2d 1358 , 1365 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Snoddy v. State , 20 Ala. App. 168 , 101 So. 303 (1924); Smith v. State , 8 Ala. App. 187 , *Page 849 62 So. 575 (1913). | 1 | 3 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Morton v. State 338 So.2d 423, 425 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 338 So.2d 428 (Ala.1976); Conley [v. State, 354 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Cr.App.1977) ]'" Harris v. State, 632 So.2d 503, 524 (Ala.Cr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morton v. State
green
2 sentences2000Morton v. State 338 So.2d 423, 425 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 338 So.2d 428 (Ala.1976); Conley [v. State, 354 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Cr.App.1977) ]'" Harris v. State, 632 So.2d 503, 524 (Ala.Cr. 1992Smith v. State , 8 Ala. App. 187 , 62 So. 575 (1913)." Morton v. State , 338 So.2d 423 , 425 (Ala.Cr.App.) cert. denied, 338 So.2d 428 (Ala. 1976). | 5 | 1982–2000 |
Conley v. State
green
2 sentences2000Morton v. State 338 So.2d 423, 425 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 338 So.2d 428 (Ala.1976); Conley [v. State, 354 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Cr.App.1977) ]'" Harris v. State, 632 So.2d 503, 524 (Ala.Cr. 1992Morton v. State, 338 So.2d 423, 425 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 338 So.2d 428 (Ala.1976); Conley [v. State, 354 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Cr.App.1977) ]." Nance v. State, 424 So.2d 1358, 1365 (Ala.Cr. | 4 | 1982–2000 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1987While it is preferable that the testimony of a co-conspirator or hearsay testimony concerning the acts and statements of a co-conspirator be received into evidence after a prima facie showing of the existence of a conspiracy, such order of proof is not mandatory. 'The order of proof requirement is for the purpose of expediting the trial and saving the valuable time of the trial court, rather than protecting or securing any supposed right a defendant might have.' Nance v. State , 424 So.2d 1358 , 1365 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Snoddy v. State , 20 Ala. App. 168 , 101 So. 303 (1924); Smith v. State , 1987While it is preferable that the testimony of a co-conspirator or hearsay testimony concerning the acts and statements of a co-conspirator be received into evidence after a prima facie showing of the existence of a conspiracy, such order of proof is not mandatory. 'The order of proof requirement is for the purpose of expediting the trial and saving the valuable time of the trial court, rather than protecting or securing any supposed right a defendant might have.' Nance v. State , 424 So.2d 1358 , 1365 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Snoddy v. State , 20 Ala. App. 168 , 101 So. 303 (1924); Smith v. State , | 4 | 1976–1992 |
Snoddy v. State
green
2 sentences1987While it is preferable that the testimony of a co-conspirator or hearsay testimony concerning the acts and statements of a co-conspirator be received into evidence after a prima facie showing of the existence of a conspiracy, such order of proof is not mandatory. 'The order of proof requirement is for the purpose of expediting the trial and saving the valuable time of the trial court, rather than protecting or securing any supposed right a defendant might have.' Nance v. State , 424 So.2d 1358 , 1365 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Snoddy v. State , 20 Ala. App. 168 , 101 So. 303 (1924); Smith v. State , 1987While it is preferable that the testimony of a co-conspirator or hearsay testimony concerning the acts and statements of a co-conspirator be received into evidence after a prima facie showing of the existence of a conspiracy, such order of proof is not mandatory. 'The order of proof requirement is for the purpose of expediting the trial and saving the valuable time of the trial court, rather than protecting or securing any supposed right a defendant might have.' Nance v. State , 424 So.2d 1358 , 1365 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Snoddy v. State , 20 Ala. App. 168 , 101 So. 303 (1924); Smith v. State , | 2 | 1983–1987 |
Inzer v. State
green
1 sentence1987While it is preferable that the testimony of a co-conspirator or hearsay testimony concerning the acts and statements of a co-conspirator be received into evidence after a prima facie showing of the existence of a conspiracy, such order of proof is not mandatory. 'The order of proof requirement is for the purpose of expediting the trial and saving the valuable time of the trial court, rather than protecting or securing any supposed right a defendant might have.' Nance v. State , 424 So.2d 1358 , 1365 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Snoddy v. State , 20 Ala. App. 168 , 101 So. 303 (1924); Smith v. State , | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Ex Parte Inzer
neutral
1 sentence1987While it is preferable that the testimony of a co-conspirator or hearsay testimony concerning the acts and statements of a co-conspirator be received into evidence after a prima facie showing of the existence of a conspiracy, such order of proof is not mandatory. 'The order of proof requirement is for the purpose of expediting the trial and saving the valuable time of the trial court, rather than protecting or securing any supposed right a defendant might have.' Nance v. State , 424 So.2d 1358 , 1365 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Snoddy v. State , 20 Ala. App. 168 , 101 So. 303 (1924); Smith v. State , | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.