55 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1906–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
People Ex Rel. Daley v. Fitzgeraldgreen2 sentences2014See Fitzgerald, supra, 123 Ill.2d at 183 , 121 Ill.Dec. 937 , 526 N.E.2d at 135 .... “ ‘. .-.By adopting this standard, we are only recognizing that a trial, court, upon a petitioner’s- showing of good cause, may exercise its inherent authority to order discovery in a proceeding for postconviction relief. 2014See Fitzgerald, supra, 123 Ill.2d at 183 , 121 Ill.Dec. 937 , 526 N.E.2d at 135 .... “ ‘. .-.By adopting this standard, we are only recognizing that a trial, court, upon a petitioner’s- showing of good cause, may exercise its inherent authority to order discovery in a proceeding for postconviction relief. | 18 | 18 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2015Accord [State v.] Lewis, [ 656 So.2d 1248 ,] 1250, [ (Fla.1994) ], wherein the Florida Supreme Court stated that the good-cause standard did not affect Florida’s rules relating to postconviction procedure, which are similar to ours. 2013Accord [State v.] Lewis, [ 656 So.2d 1248 ,] at 1250 [ (Fla.1994) ], wherein the Florida Supreme Court stated that the good-cause standard did not affect Florida’s rules relating to postconviction procedure, which are similar to ours. | 17 | 18 |
Ex Parte Landgreen2 sentences2024(C. 387.) The Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Land, 775 So. 2d 847 (Ala. 2000), first recognized that there is no absolute right to discovery in a postconviction proceeding and that to be entitled to discovery the petitioner must establish "good cause." The Land Court stated: "We emphasize that this holding -- that postconviction discovery motions are to be judged by a good-cause standard -- does not automatically allow discovery under Rule 32, Ala. R. 2011In this regard, we point out that postconvietion discovery is not prohibited—as the-circuit court’s notation on the case-action summary denying Bryant’s discovery request appears to suggest—but, rather, is governed by the good-cause standard set-out by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Land, 775 So.2d 847 (Ala.2000), as follows: “We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that ‘good cause’ is the appropriate standard by which to judge post-conviction discovery motions. | 2 | 4 |
McNair v. Stategreen2 sentences2013P. (‘When a prospective juror is subject to challenge for cause or it reasonably appears that the prospective juror cannot or will not render a fair and impartial verdict, the court, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, shall excuse that juror from service in the case.’). “ ‘Also, “ ‘[t]he trial judge is in the best position to hear a prospective juror and to observe his or her demeanor.’ ” McNair v. State, 653 So.2d 320, 324 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 653 So.2d 353 (Ala.1994) (quoting Ex parte Dinkins, 567 So.2d 1313, 1314 (Ala.1990)). 2010“Also, ‘ “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to hear a prospective juror and to observe his or her demeanor.” ’ McNair v. State, 653 So.2d 320, 324 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 653 So.2d 353 (Ala.1994) (quoting Ex parte Dinkins, 567 So.2d 1313, 1314 (Ala.1990)). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Dinkinsgreen2 sentences2013P. (‘When a prospective juror is subject to challenge for cause or it reasonably appears that the prospective juror cannot or will not render a fair and impartial verdict, the court, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, shall excuse that juror from service in the case.’). “ ‘Also, “ ‘[t]he trial judge is in the best position to hear a prospective juror and to observe his or her demeanor.’ ” McNair v. State, 653 So.2d 320, 324 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 653 So.2d 353 (Ala.1994) (quoting Ex parte Dinkins, 567 So.2d 1313, 1314 (Ala.1990)). 2010“Also, ‘ “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to hear a prospective juror and to observe his or her demeanor.” ’ McNair v. State, 653 So.2d 320, 324 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 653 So.2d 353 (Ala.1994) (quoting Ex parte Dinkins, 567 So.2d 1313, 1314 (Ala.1990)). | 2 | 2 |
Lonnie Joe Dutton v. John N. Brown and the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiaegreen2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al 1999"In Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36, 47 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), this Court outlined the guidelines for determining whether a potential juror should be excluded for cause based on his or her feelings concerning capital punishment: "`"The proper standard for determining whether a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment is `whether the juror's views would "prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath."' Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 852 , 83 L.Ed.2d | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Boatwrightgreen2 sentences2008See Ex parte Land, 775 So.2d at 852 (“ ‘[A]n evidentiary hearing must be held on a [petition for postconviction relief] which is meritorious on its face, ie., one which contains matters and allegations (such as ineffective assistance of counsel) which, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief.’ ” (quoting Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Ala.1985))). 2000In addition, we are bound by our own rule that "an evidentiary hearing must be held on a [petition for postconviction relief] which is meritorious on its face, i . e ., one which contains matters and allegations (such as ineffective assistance of counsel) which, if true, entitle the petitioner to relief." Ex parte Boatwright , 471 So.2d 1257 , 1258 (Ala. 1985). 3 We emphasize that this holding — that postconviction discovery motions are to be judged by a good-cause standard — does not automatically allow discovery under Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., and that it does not expand the discovery procedur | 1 | 2 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences1976That statute has been interpreted for us by the United States Supreme Court in Boulden v. Holman, Warden, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 and by our Supreme Court in Jackson v. State, 285 Ala. 564 , 234 So.2d 579 plus others. 1976That statute has been interpreted for us by the United States Supreme Court in Boulden v. Holman, Warden, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 and by our Supreme Court in Jackson v. State, 285 Ala. 564 , 234 So.2d 579 plus others. | 1 | 2 |
Kuenzel v. Stategreen1 sentence2024A claim is facially meritorious 'only if the claim (1) is sufficiently pleaded in accordance with Rule 32.3 and Rule 32.6(b); (2) is not precluded by one of the provisions in Rule 32.2; and (3) contains factual allegations that, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief.' Kuenzel v. State, 204 So. 3d 910, 914 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Turnergreen1 sentence2024Thus, '[t]he threshold issue in a good- cause inquiry is whether the Rule 32 petitioner has presented claims that are facially meritorious.' Ex parte Turner, 2 So. 3d 806, 812 (Ala. 2008), overruled on other grounds by State v. Martin, 69 So. 3d 94 (Ala. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Robert Nelson Drew v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Divisiongreen1 sentence2015It seemed like it was just too hard for him to get there. [[Image here]] “The Court is under the definite impression that this juror would have such a difficult time to faithfully and impartially apply the law that he would not be competent to sit on this jury, and the Court will grant the State’s challenge for cause.” (R. 998-99.) Section 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, specifically provides: “On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regar | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Haigler v. Department of Indus. Relationsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2010Section 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence.” Moreover, as this Court explained in Saunders v. State, 10 So.3d 53 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), regarding 2010Section 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence.” Moreover, as this Court explained in Saunders v. State, 10 So.3d 53 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), regarding | 5 | 1978–2010 |
Morris v. State
green
2 sentences2026Because "[w]e have held in the previous sections of this opinion that the circuit court did not err by summarily dismissing [Creque's] claims," "it follows that [Creque] did not meet the good-cause standard for obtaining postconviction discovery." Id. 2026Because "[w]e have held in the previous sections of this opinion that the circuit court did not err by summarily dismissing [Belcher's] claims," "it follows that [Belcher] did not meet the good-cause standard for obtaining postconviction discovery." Id. | 4 | 2025–2026 |
Davis v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1988Section 12-16-152, Code of Alabama (1975), reads as follows: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the State that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." The appellant contends that this statute would allow the exclusion of veniremen wh 1988Section 12-16-152, Code of Alabama (1975), reads as follows: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the State that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." The appellant contends that this statute would allow the exclusion of veniremen wh | 4 | 1978–1988 |
Boulden v. Holman
green
2 sentences1970In Witherspoon, supra, at the petitioner’s trial the prosecution had eliminated forty-seven prospective jurors by challenging them under the Illinois statute in effect at that time, which provided as follows: “In trials for murder it shall be a cause for challenge of any juror who shall, on being examined, state that he has conscientious scruples against capital punishment, or that he is opposed to the same.” The Alabama statute under which the jurors were challenged for cause in the instant case, Section 57, Title 30, Code 1940, Recompiled in 1958, provides as follows: “On the trial for any o 1970In Witherspoon, supra, at the petitioner’s trial the prosecution had eliminated forty-seven prospective jurors by challenging them under the Illinois statute in effect at that time, which provided as follows: “In trials for murder it shall be a cause for challenge of any juror who shall, on being examined, state that he has conscientious scruples against capital punishment, or that he is opposed to the same.” The Alabama statute under which the jurors were challenged for cause in the instant case, Section 57, Title 30, Code 1940, Recompiled in 1958, provides as follows: “On the trial for any o | 3 | 1970–1976 |
Ex Parte McNair
green
2 sentences2013P. (‘When a prospective juror is subject to challenge for cause or it reasonably appears that the prospective juror cannot or will not render a fair and impartial verdict, the court, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, shall excuse that juror from service in the case.’). “ ‘Also, “ ‘[t]he trial judge is in the best position to hear a prospective juror and to observe his or her demeanor.’ ” McNair v. State, 653 So.2d 320, 324 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 653 So.2d 353 (Ala.1994) (quoting Ex parte Dinkins, 567 So.2d 1313, 1314 (Ala.1990)). 2010“Also, ‘ “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to hear a prospective juror and to observe his or her demeanor.” ’ McNair v. State, 653 So.2d 320, 324 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 653 So.2d 353 (Ala.1994) (quoting Ex parte Dinkins, 567 So.2d 1313, 1314 (Ala.1990)). | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Ex Parte Dobyne
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr. 1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Dobyne v. State
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr. 1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Gray v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al 1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Cabal v. Envirodyne Engineers, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al 1999"In Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36, 47 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), this Court outlined the guidelines for determining whether a potential juror should be excluded for cause based on his or her feelings concerning capital punishment: "`"The proper standard for determining whether a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment is `whether the juror's views would "prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath."' Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 852 , 83 L.Ed.2d | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al 1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Ifill v. District of Columbia
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr. 1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Burress v. Unitarian-Universalist Society of Sacramento, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr. 1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Dobyne v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr. 1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Hutcherson v. State
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr. 1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Ex Parte Hutcherson
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Cr. 1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Holliday
green
2 sentences1999P. Regarding challenges for cause in capital cases, § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regardless of the evidence produced or has a fixed opinion against penitentiary punishment or thinks that a conviction should not be had on circumstantial evidence, which cause of challenge may be proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." *75 See also Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174 (Al 1999"In Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36, 47 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), this Court outlined the guidelines for determining whether a potential juror should be excluded for cause based on his or her feelings concerning capital punishment: "`"The proper standard for determining whether a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment is `whether the juror's views would "prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath."' Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 852 , 83 L.Ed.2d | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Lee v. State
green
1 sentence2026"Based on [the veniremember's] responses, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the challenged veniremember[] 73 CR-2022-1044 [was] ineligible to serve pursuant to § 12-16-152, Ala. Code 1975." Lee, 898 So. 2d at 844 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence2024Thus, '[t]he threshold issue in a good- cause inquiry is whether the Rule 32 petitioner has presented claims that are facially meritorious.' Ex parte Turner, 2 So. 3d 806, 812 (Ala. 2008), overruled on other grounds by State v. Martin, 69 So. 3d 94 (Ala. 2011). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Range v. United States green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Harris v. Collins green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Clark v. United States
green
1 sentence2015It seemed like it was just too hard for him to get there. [[Image here]] “The Court is under the definite impression that this juror would have such a difficult time to faithfully and impartially apply the law that he would not be competent to sit on this jury, and the Court will grant the State’s challenge for cause.” (R. 998-99.) Section 12-16-152, Ala.Code 1975, specifically provides: “On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person would refuse to impose the death penalty regar | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Boyle v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Martin green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Saunders v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Nielsen green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Ellenburg v. Hartselle City Bd. of Ed. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Batson v. Kentucky green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Powers v. Ohio green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Nail v. State neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Ott v. State green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| State v. Brockhaus green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Harrison v. State neutral | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| Jackson v. State green | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| Parker v. State neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Thomas v. State neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.