5 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1912–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coats v. State
green
2 sentences2010Also in [Coats] v. State, 253 Ala. 290 , 45 So.2d 35 (1950), it was held not error to permit the appellant, at the request of the State during its cross examination and over the objection of defense counsel, to leave the witness stand and sit in a chair, in view of the jury, so as to better demonstrate the manner in which the appellant contended he was holding the gun at the time of its discharge. 2010Also in [Coats] v. State, 253 Ala. 290 , 45 So.2d 35 (1950), it was held not error to permit the appellant, at the request of the State during its cross examination and over the objection of defense counsel, to leave the witness stand and sit in a chair, in view of the jury, so as to better demonstrate the manner in which the appellant contended he was holding the gun at the time of its discharge. | 3 | 1979–2010 |
Lumpkin v. State
neutral
2 sentences2010While not all of them mention the question of constitutional privilege, the general import of these cases appears to be that by voluntarily testifying to and opening up the matter on his direct examination, or perhaps merely by voluntarily becoming a witness in the case, the defendant had waived such privilege as he may have originally had against giving the particular demonstration.’ “In Lumpkin v. State, 19 Ala.App. 272 , 97 So. 171 (1923), it was held not error to require, upon cross examination, a defendant in a homicide case, who had become a witness in his own behalf, to illustrate befor 2010While not all of them mention the question of constitutional privilege, the general import of these cases appears to be that by voluntarily testifying to and opening up the matter on his direct examination, or perhaps merely by voluntarily becoming a witness in the case, the defendant had waived such privilege as he may have originally had against giving the particular demonstration.’ “In Lumpkin v. State, 19 Ala.App. 272 , 97 So. 171 (1923), it was held not error to require, upon cross examination, a defendant in a homicide case, who had become a witness in his own behalf, to illustrate befor | 3 | 1979–2010 |
Affinity Hospital, L.L.C. v. Williford
green
1 sentence2012This brings us to Affinity Hospital, LLC v. Williford, 21 So.3d 712 (Ala.2009). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Gunter v. State
green
1 sentence1912It did not appear from the averments of the plea that the defendant had waived his privilege of not being put in jeopardy a second time for the same offense by procuring the vacation of the judgment rendered at the former term. —State v. McFarlan, 121 Ala. 45 , 25 South. 625 ; Gunter v. State, 83 Ala. 96 , 3 South. 600 . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
State v. McFarland
neutral
1 sentence1912It did not appear from the averments of the plea that the defendant had waived his privilege of not being put in jeopardy a second time for the same offense by procuring the vacation of the judgment rendered at the former term. —State v. McFarlan, 121 Ala. 45 , 25 South. 625 ; Gunter v. State, 83 Ala. 96 , 3 South. 600 . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.