commentary rule in Alabama

2006The commentary to that rule notes that Rule 13.5(a), changes the prior procedure set out in § 15-8-90 , "except as to amendments to charge a new offense not contemplated in the original indictment."' " Capers v. State , 606 So.2d 207 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (footnote omitted; emphasis original).

1996The commentary to that rule notes that Rule 13.5(a), changes the prior procedure set out in § 15-8-90 , 'except as to amendments to charge a new offense not contemplated in the original indictment.' " Capers v. State , 606 So.2d 207 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (footnote omitted; emphasis original).

2025"The commentary to our rule of evidence makes clear that electronic communications, such as text messages, are subject to the same standard of authentication and the same methods of authentication as other forms of evidence: 'As with any other form of evidence, a party may use any appropriate method, or combination of methods, described in this commentary, or any other proof to demonstrate that the proffer is what its proponent claims it to be, to authenticate any particular item of electronically stored information.' Conn. Code Evid. (2018) § 9-1, commentary; cf. State v. Hannah, 448 N.J.

2025Super. 78, 88-89 , 151 A.3d 99 (App. Div. 2016) ('Despite the seeming novelty of social [network generated] documents, courts have applied the existing concepts of authentication ....

2009Further, even if the [trial court] had not entered the September 29, 2008, order as a sanction, the [trial court] would not have abused its discretion by entering the September 29, 2008, discovery order based on the [trial court’s] inherent power to compel discovery based on the concerns of the [trial court] that a fair trial be conducted in the case below.” Initially, we note that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery *29 in a criminal case ...; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherfo

2009Further, even if the [trial court] had not entered the September 29, 2008, order as a sanction, the [trial court] would not have abused its discretion by entering the September 29, 2008, discovery order based on the [trial court’s] inherent power to compel discovery based on the concerns of the [trial court] that a fair trial be conducted in the case below.” Initially, we note that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery *29 in a criminal case ...; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherfo

2009Further, even if the [trial court] had not entered the September 29, 2008, order as a sanction, the [trial court] would not have abused its discretion by entering the September 29, 2008, discovery order based on the [trial court’s] inherent power to compel discovery based on the concerns of the [trial court] that a fair trial be conducted in the case below.” Initially, we note that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery *29 in a criminal case ...; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherfo

2009Further, even if the [trial court] had not entered the September 29, 2008, order as a sanction, the [trial court] would not have abused its discretion by entering the September 29, 2008, discovery order based on the [trial court’s] inherent power to compel discovery based on the concerns of the [trial court] that a fair trial be conducted in the case below.” Initially, we note that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery *29 in a criminal case ...; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherfo

1996Before accepting a waiver, the court shall address the defendant personally in open court and shall advise the defendant of his or her right to a trial by jury, and shall ascertain that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” (Emphasis added.) Further, the commentary to this rule states as follows: “In Singleton v. State, 288 Ala. 519 , 262 So.2d 768 (1971), the Alabama Supreme Court held that waiver of jury trial in a noncapital felony case must be made knowingly and intelligently and that the prosecutor and the court must consent to it.

1996Before accepting a waiver, the court shall address the defendant personally in open court and shall advise the defendant of his or her right to a trial by jury, and shall ascertain that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” (Emphasis added.) Further, the commentary to this rule states as follows: “In Singleton v. State, 288 Ala. 519 , 262 So.2d 768 (1971), the Alabama Supreme Court held that waiver of jury trial in a noncapital felony case must be made knowingly and intelligently and that the prosecutor and the court must consent to it.

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err

1986The Commentary to this rule refers to § 15-8-90 , Code of Alabama (1975), which states: "An indictment may be amended with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." The Comment to Temporary Rule 15.5 states, "This Code section reflects the common law rule that an indictment cannot be amended, even as to immaterial matters, without the consent of the defendant, and it has been consistently held that to permit amendment without such consent is reversible err