reversible character error (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

reversible character error in Alabama

6 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2004 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Ex Parte Ciervo.green
ala · 1977 · cited in 5 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1984–2004
2 sentences

2004Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the Court in the exercise of sound discretion." Gaffney v. State, 342 So.2d 403, 404 (Ala.Crim.App.1976).

1998Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the Court in the exercise of sound discretion. . . . [The trial court's] ruling and determination [on this matter] will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.'" Davis v. State, 457 So.2d 992 , 995 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), quoting Gaffney v State, 342 So.2d 403 , 404 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976).

15
Hand v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
1 sentence

1991This court, in Hand v. State, 472 So.2d 671, 674 (Ala.Cr.App.), rev’d on other grounds, 472 So.2d 675 (Ala.1985), held: “ ‘The prejudicial effect of communications between jurors and others, especially in a criminal case, determines the reversible character of the error.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Ex Parte Gaffney green
ala · 1977
2 sentences

1991Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the Court in the exercise of sound discretion." Gaffney v. State , 342 So.2d 403 , 404 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied , 342 So.2d 404 (Ala. 1977). "[D]ue process does not require a new trial every time a juror has been placed in a potentially compromising situation.

1991Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.’ Gaffney v. State, 342 So.2d 403 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 342 So.2d 404 (Ala.1977); Graham v. State, 339 So.2d 110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 114 (Ala.1976); Simms v. State, 56 Ala.App. 156 , 320 So.2d 89 (1975).

31984–1991
Simms v. State green
alacrimapp · 1975
2 sentences

1991Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.’ Gaffney v. State, 342 So.2d 403 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 342 So.2d 404 (Ala.1977); Graham v. State, 339 So.2d 110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 114 (Ala.1976); Simms v. State, 56 Ala.App. 156 , 320 So.2d 89 (1975).

1991Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.’ Gaffney v. State, 342 So.2d 403 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 342 So.2d 404 (Ala.1977); Graham v. State, 339 So.2d 110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 114 (Ala.1976); Simms v. State, 56 Ala.App. 156 , 320 So.2d 89 (1975).

21984–1991
Graham v. State green
alacrimapp · 1976
2 sentences

1991Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.’ Gaffney v. State, 342 So.2d 403 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 342 So.2d 404 (Ala.1977); Graham v. State, 339 So.2d 110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 114 (Ala.1976); Simms v. State, 56 Ala.App. 156 , 320 So.2d 89 (1975).

1984Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the court in the exercise of sound discretion." Gaffney v. State , 342 So.2d 403 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976), cert. denied, 342 So.2d 404 (Ala. 1977); Graham v. State , 339 So.2d 110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 114 (Ala. 1976); Simms v. State , 56 Ala. App. 156 , 320 So.2d 89 (1975).

21984–1991
Graham v. State neutral
ala · 1976
2 sentences

1991Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.’ Gaffney v. State, 342 So.2d 403 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 342 So.2d 404 (Ala.1977); Graham v. State, 339 So.2d 110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 114 (Ala.1976); Simms v. State, 56 Ala.App. 156 , 320 So.2d 89 (1975).

1984Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the court in the exercise of sound discretion." Gaffney v. State , 342 So.2d 403 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976), cert. denied, 342 So.2d 404 (Ala. 1977); Graham v. State , 339 So.2d 110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 114 (Ala. 1976); Simms v. State , 56 Ala. App. 156 , 320 So.2d 89 (1975).

21984–1991
Davis v. State green
alacrimapp · 1984
1 sentence

1998Whether there has been a communication with the juror and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the Court in the exercise of sound discretion. . . . [The trial court's] ruling and determination [on this matter] will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.'" Davis v. State, 457 So.2d 992 , 995 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), quoting Gaffney v State, 342 So.2d 403 , 404 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976).

11998–1998
Ex Parte Hand green
ala · 1985
1 sentence

1991This court, in Hand v. State, 472 So.2d 671, 674 (Ala.Cr.App.), rev’d on other grounds, 472 So.2d 675 (Ala.1985), held: “ ‘The prejudicial effect of communications between jurors and others, especially in a criminal case, determines the reversible character of the error.

11991–1991
Hollins v. State green
alacrimapp · 1982
1 sentence

1987Hollins v. State , 415 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Watson v. State , 389 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980). " 'The prejudicial effect of communications between jurors and others, especially in a criminal case, determines the reversible character of the error.

11987–1987
Watson v. State green
alacrimapp · 1980
1 sentence

1987Hollins v. State , 415 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Watson v. State , 389 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980). " 'The prejudicial effect of communications between jurors and others, especially in a criminal case, determines the reversible character of the error.

11987–1987

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check