chief rule in Alabama

1989Cf. Lee Won Sing v. United States , 94 U.S.App.D.C. 310 , 215 F.2d 680 (1954) (where the chief defense witness stated that he committed the crime and was pleading guilty to the offense, his credibility was of great importance and the prosecutor's question asserting that the witness was pleading guilty because the defendant was paying him $20,000 was prejudicial error requiring reversal inasmuch as the prosecutor offered no evidence to refute the witness's negative response); People v. Hudson , 179 Cal.Rtpr. at 99, 126 Cal.App.3d at 741 ("The question of appellant's guilt depended greatly on th

1989Cf. Lee Won Sing v. United States , 94 U.S.App.D.C. 310 , 215 F.2d 680 (1954) (where the chief defense witness stated that he committed the crime and was pleading guilty to the offense, his credibility was of great importance and the prosecutor's question asserting that the witness was pleading guilty because the defendant was paying him $20,000 was prejudicial error requiring reversal inasmuch as the prosecutor offered no evidence to refute the witness's negative response); People v. Hudson , 179 Cal.Rtpr. at 99, 126 Cal.App.3d at 741 ("The question of appellant's guilt depended greatly on th

1987Bank , 334 So.2d, at 853 (quoting Holt, Testate Succession in Alabama: Part I , 24 Ala.L.Rev. 221, 244 (1971)); see First Nat.

1987"The chief test [of the admissibility of evidence] is relevance and materiality." O'Brien v. United States , 411 F.2d 522 , 524 (5th Cir. 1969).

1976The case of First Nat'l Bank v. Klein, 285 Ala. 505 , 234 So.2d 42 (1970), considers the requirements of this doctrine.

1976The case of First Nat'l Bank v. Klein, 285 Ala. 505 , 234 So.2d 42 (1970), considers the requirements of this doctrine.

1973Because of these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the State of Alabama secured the presence of the appellant as soon as it could because the State of California at no time had indicated that the appellant would be made available for trial in Alabama prior to releasing the appellant in 1971. 5 , 6 In Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 , 42 S.Ct. 309 , 66 L.Ed. 607 , we find: “The chief rule which preserves our two systems of courts from actual conflict of jurisdiction is that the court which first takes the subject-matter of the litigation into its control, whether this be person or prop

1973Because of these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the State of Alabama secured the presence of the appellant as soon as it could because the State of California at no time had indicated that the appellant would be made available for trial in Alabama prior to releasing the appellant in 1971. 5 , 6 In Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 , 42 S.Ct. 309 , 66 L.Ed. 607 , we find: “The chief rule which preserves our two systems of courts from actual conflict of jurisdiction is that the court which first takes the subject-matter of the litigation into its control, whether this be person or prop

1966In Boyea v. Besch, 144 Minn. 254, 256 , 174 N.W. 894 , the court said: “The chief error of which defendant complains is that he was deprived of a jury trial.

1966In Boyea v. Besch, 144 Minn. 254, 256 , 174 N.W. 894 , the court said: “The chief error of which defendant complains is that he was deprived of a jury trial.