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 2002–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Woods v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Woods v. State, [ 957 So.2d 492 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) ] (holding Woods’ claim his trial counsels were ineffective for failing to question his family members did not meet the pleading requirements of Rule 32.6(b) because ‘Woods fail[ed] to identify any family member by name, proffer what their testimony would have been at trial, or argue why such testimony would have caused a different result at the penalty phase or at sentencing’). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Logginsgreen2 sentences2007He argues that the exhibits “were so very prejudicial that they should have been excluded even if relevant under [Rule 401, Ala.R.Evid.], by the weighing test provided for in [Rule 403, Ala.R.Evid.].” (Woods’s brief at p. 52.) 5 Rule 403, Ala.R.Evid., provides that “[although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” “ ‘The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matt 2007App.2000), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1215 (Ala. 2001). `The question of admissibility of evidence is generally left to the discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination on that question will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.' Ex parte Loggins, 771 So.2d 1093, 1103 (Ala.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2007He argues that the exhibits “were so very prejudicial that they should have been excluded even if relevant under [Rule 401, Ala.R.Evid.], by the weighing test provided for in [Rule 403, Ala.R.Evid.].” (Woods’s brief at p. 52.) 5 Rule 403, Ala.R.Evid., provides that “[although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” “ ‘The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matt 2007He argues that the exhibits "were so very prejudicial that they should have been excluded even if relevant under [Rule 401, Ala.R.Evid.], by the weighing test provided for in [Rule 403, Ala.R.Evid.]" (Woods's brief at p. 52.) [5] Rule 403, Ala.R.Evid., provides that "[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." "`The admission or exclusion of evidence is a mat | 1 | 1 |
Gavin v. Stategreen1 sentence2007In addition, ‘[t]rial courts are vested with considerable discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant, and such a determination will not be reversed absent plain error or an abuse of discretion.’ Hayes v. State, 717 So.2d 30, 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).” Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907, 963 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Stategreen1 sentence2007The possibility of court-reporter error is supported by the fact that Woods did not object to the instruction, and that the remainder of the trial court's jury charge is substantially similar to the Alabama Proposed Pattern Jury Instructions for Use in the Sentence Stage of Capital Cases Tried Under Act No. 81-178. "`This Court may take notice of typographical errors which are "plainly ... self-corrective, clerical mistake[s]." Stewart v. State, 137 Ala. 33 , 34 So. 818 , 821 (1903).' Kuenzel v. State , 577 So.2d [474, 523 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991)]." Simmons v. Stat | 1 | 1 |
Hayes v. Stategreen1 sentence2007In addition, ‘[t]rial courts are vested with considerable discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant, and such a determination will not be reversed absent plain error or an abuse of discretion.’ Hayes v. State, 717 So.2d 30, 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).” Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907, 963 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Dorsey , ___ So.2d at ___ (quoting Jones v. State , 753 So.2d 1174 , 1189 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Orozco v. State
green
2 sentences2016In its brief on appeal, the State cites this Court's decision in Phillips v. City of Dothan, 534 So.2d 381 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), for the "well established" legal principle that "a defendant's guilty plea in a lower court, but not the judgment itself in the lower court, is admissible in a criminal trial in Circuit Court because a guilty plea is a judicial confession or an admission against interest." (State's brief, p. 10.) In Phillips , the defendant was charged with driving under the influence and entered a guilty plea to that charge in municipal court. 2016In its brief on appeal, the State cites this Court's decision in Phillips v. City of Dothan, 534 So.2d 381 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), for the "well established" legal principle that "a defendant's guilty plea in a lower court, but not the judgment itself in the lower court, is admissible in a criminal trial in Circuit Court because a guilty plea is a judicial confession or an admission against interest." (State's brief, p. 10.) In Phillips , the defendant was charged with driving under the influence and entered a guilty plea to that charge in municipal court. | 4 | 2016–2016 |
Woods v. State
neutral
2 sentences2016The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the circuit court's admission of evidence of Woods's plea of guilty made in the district court "violate[d] well settled principles of law regarding a trial de novo and that the admission of such evidence [was] inherently prejudicial." Woods v. State , 261 So. 3d 483 , 488 (Ala. Crim. 2016The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the circuit court's admission of evidence of Woods's plea of guilty made in the district court "violate[d] well settled principles of law regarding a trial de novo and that the admission of such evidence [was] inherently prejudicial." Woods v. State , 261 So. 3d 483 , 488 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2016As the Washington Court of Appeals stated in State v. Thomas, 123 Wash.App. 771 , 98 P.3d 1258 (2004): “ ‘A voluntary intoxication defense allows the jury to consider “evidence of intoxication” to determine whether the defendant acted with the requisite intent. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Slagle v. Bagley
green
1 sentence2016Woods cites a 2007 brief filed by the State of Alabama in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Barbour v. Allen, 551 U.S. 1134 , 127 S.Ct. 2996 , 168 L.Ed.2d 707 (2007), in which the State said: " 'An inmate is simply to check from the list any ground that he feels applies to his case and to summarize the basic facts pertinent to each claim.’ ’’ (Woods’s brief, at pp. 17-18.) . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2016As the Washington Court of Appeals stated in State v. Thomas, 123 Wash.App. 771 , 98 P.3d 1258 (2004): “ ‘A voluntary intoxication defense allows the jury to consider “evidence of intoxication” to determine whether the defendant acted with the requisite intent. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Darrell B. Grayson v. Leslie Thompson
green
2 sentences2007Furthermore, this Court has quoted with approval the following from Grayson v. Thompson, 257 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir.2001): “ ‘An ambiguous or silent record is not sufficient to disprove the strong and continuing presumption [of effective representation]. 2007Furthermore, this Court has quoted with approval the following from Grayson v. Thompson, 257 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir.2001): "`An ambiguous or silent record is not sufficient to disprove the strong and continuing presumption [of effective representation]. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Stewart v. State
neutral
1 sentence2007The possibility of court-reporter error is supported by the fact that Woods did not object to the instruction, and that the remainder of the trial court's jury charge is substantially similar to the Alabama Proposed Pattern Jury Instructions for Use in the Sentence Stage of Capital Cases Tried Under Act No. 81-178. "`This Court may take notice of typographical errors which are "plainly ... self-corrective, clerical mistake[s]." Stewart v. State, 137 Ala. 33 , 34 So. 818 , 821 (1903).' Kuenzel v. State , 577 So.2d [474, 523 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991)]." Simmons v. Stat | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ex Parte Taylor
green
2 sentences2007He argues that the exhibits “were so very prejudicial that they should have been excluded even if relevant under [Rule 401, Ala.R.Evid.], by the weighing test provided for in [Rule 403, Ala.R.Evid.].” (Woods’s brief at p. 52.) 5 Rule 403, Ala.R.Evid., provides that “[although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” “ ‘The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matt 2007App.2000), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1215 (Ala. 2001). `The question of admissibility of evidence is generally left to the discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination on that question will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.' Ex parte Loggins, 771 So.2d 1093, 1103 (Ala.2000). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ex Parte Kuenzel
green
1 sentence2007The possibility of court-reporter error is supported by the fact that Woods did not object to the instruction, and that the remainder of the trial court's jury charge is substantially similar to the Alabama Proposed Pattern Jury Instructions for Use in the Sentence Stage of Capital Cases Tried Under Act No. 81-178. "`This Court may take notice of typographical errors which are "plainly ... self-corrective, clerical mistake[s]." Stewart v. State, 137 Ala. 33 , 34 So. 818 , 821 (1903).' Kuenzel v. State , 577 So.2d [474, 523 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991)]." Simmons v. Stat | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ex Parte Woodall
green
1 sentence2002Section 13A-11-61 , Ala. Code 1975, in relevant part, provides: "(a) No person shall shoot or discharge a firearm, explosive or other weapon which discharges a dangerous projectile into any occupied or unoccupied dwelling or building or railroad locomotive or railroad car, aircraft, automobile, truck or watercraft in this state." The Alabama Supreme Court addressed the appellate court's role in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases in Ex parte Woodall , 730 So.2d 652 (Ala. 1998): "`In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court m | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.