Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Minor
green
2 sentences2010The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that there was no plain error because the trial court could have `reasonably determined that... defense counsel had elicited Minor's admission of the prior convictions as part of trial strategy and did not want to call additional attention to the evidence through an instruction to the jury.' 780 So.2d at 773 . 2010The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that there was no plain error because the trial court could have ‘reasonably determined that ... defense counsel had elicited Minor’s admission of the prior convictions as part of trial strategy and did not want to call additional attention to the evidence through an instruction to the jury.’ 780 So.2d at 773 . | 3 | 2001–2010 |
Minor v. State
green
1 sentence2000The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that there was no plain error because the trial court could have "reasonably determined that . . . defense counsel had elicited Minor's admission of the prior convictions as part of trial strategy and did not want to call additional attention to the evidence through an instruction to the jury." 780 So.2d at 773 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences1999In support of his argument, Minor cites State v. Brown, 296 S.C. 191 , 371 S.E.2d 523 (1988), in which the South Carolina Supreme Court held that failure to charge the jury that evidence of defendant's prior convictions could be used only for impeachment purposes constituted reversible error. 1999In support of his argument, Minor cites State v. Brown, 296 S.C. 191 , 371 S.E.2d 523 (1988), in which the South Carolina Supreme Court held that failure to charge the jury that evidence of defendant's prior convictions could be used only for impeachment purposes constituted reversible error. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.