The case involved three defendants who were separately tried and convicted of raping the same victim on one occasion in 1970. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the convictions in each case and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the trial court erred by admitting the defendants' confessions without adequate proof that they were voluntary, allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony about an absent doctor's unavailability, permitting improper cross-examination that forced one defendant to call other witnesses liars, and making comments that suggested the judge had prejudged the voluntariness issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a conviction for buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in concealing stolen property after an indictment that also charged grand larceny. The trial court instructed the jury that recent possession of stolen property placed a burden on the defendant to explain his possession and that an unreasonable explanation could support an inference of guilty knowledge. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that this charge improperly placed a burden on the defendant even though it included language stating the state retained the ultimate burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Precedents were cited showing that discussions of inferences from possession are appropriate for reviewing evidence sufficiency on appeal but not for jury instructions, as similar charges had been condemned in prior state and federal cases.

criminal law

This case was an appeal from a conviction for possession of marijuana based on a guilty plea, with a two-year sentence. The court reversed and remanded the judgment because the official record contained contradictions between the judgment entries and the court reporter's transcript on key events like arraignment dates, the plea withdrawal, and sentencing proceedings. The core reasoning was that judgment recitals import verity only if not contradicted by other record portions, and the transcript failed to show the explicit judicial inquiries and defendant responses needed to establish a knowing and voluntary guilty plea under Boykin v. Alabama, while also lacking affirmative proof of counsel's presence at sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Phillip Luther, who was charged with and convicted of second-degree arson for burning Wilson's Discount Store. The state's evidence, primarily from accomplice Eddie Scott, described Luther planning and assisting in the arson by preparing gasoline-filled jugs and an incendiary device with a firecracker. On appeal, the court addressed claims of improper witness questioning about prior statements, limitations on cross-examination, and objections to defense counsel's closing arguments referencing unproven facts. The court held these evidentiary rulings proper or non-prejudicial and affirmed the four-year sentence.

criminal law

The case involved Hillard Dawson's conviction for robbery arising from an armed home invasion in which the victim, Buey Stokes, was tied up and burned with a poker while the perpetrators searched his house. Dawson challenged the victim's in-court identification on the ground that it stemmed from an improper custodial show-up at the county jail without counsel present, relying on United States v. Wade and related precedents. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the thirty-year sentence, holding that Stokes possessed an independent basis for the identification from his clear observations during the robbery and had already named Dawson to officers before the jail viewing, so the confrontation did not taint the testimony. The majority concluded that the pretrial motion to suppress was properly denied and that any objection at trial would likewise have been overruled.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Bray v. State was an appeal from a robbery conviction in which the defendant was sentenced to fifty years in prison after allegedly taking money and a pistol from a gas station attendant at gunpoint. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's testimony was sufficient to support the verdict if believed by the jury. The reasoning relied on established precedents that robbery can occur when property is taken from the victim's presence or protection, and that ownership of the stolen items may be attributed to the party in possession, such as an employee or agent.

criminal law