Hodges brief in Alabama

2011The Alabama Supreme Court reversed this Court’s judgment and remanded the cause for this Court, in turn, to remand the cause to the circuit court for “an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Hodges’s claim that some of the jurors’ answers during voir dire were untruthful.” Ex parte Hodges, 147 So.3d 973 (Ala.2011).

2005In addition, Hodges cites to only a single case for the general proposition that "[a]ll evidence that derives from the poisonous tree (Hodges'[s] confession) must be excluded." (Hodges's brief at p. 24.) "Authority supporting only `general propositions of law' does not constitute a sufficient argument for reversal." Beachcroft Props., LLP v. City of Alabaster , 901 So.2d 703 , 708 (Ala. 2004), quoting Geisenhoff v. Geisenhoff , 693 So.2d 489 , 491 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997).

2005In addition, Hodges cites to only a single case for the general proposition that "[a]ll evidence that derives from the poisonous tree (Hodges'[s] confession) must be excluded." (Hodges's brief at p. 24.) "Authority supporting only `general propositions of law' does not constitute a sufficient argument for reversal." Beachcroft Props., LLP v. City of Alabaster , 901 So.2d 703 , 708 (Ala. 2004), quoting Geisenhoff v. Geisenhoff , 693 So.2d 489 , 491 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997).

2001As we stated in Ferguson v. State, 814 So.2d 925 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), "This court and the Alabama Supreme Court have repeatedly held that using an element of capital murder as an aggravating circumstance is constitutionally permissible and does not violate a defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy." 814 So.2d at 956, aff'd, 814 So.2d 970 (Ala.2001).

2001As we stated in Ferguson v. State, 814 So.2d 925 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), "This court and the Alabama Supreme Court have repeatedly held that using an element of capital murder as an aggravating circumstance is constitutionally permissible and does not violate a defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy." 814 So.2d at 956, aff'd, 814 So.2d 970 (Ala.2001).

1996Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in granting Hodges's motion for a directed verdict with regard to punitive damages." 680 So.2d 243, 245 .

1996Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in granting Hodges's motion for a directed verdict with regard to punitive damages." 680 So.2d 243 , 245 .

1993Danford, supra. Hodges asserts that the jury’s verdict could have been based on innocent misrepresentation, and therefore, any error by the trial court with regard to punitive damages was harmless.