Annie Lola Price

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

In Parks v. State, the appellant was convicted of illegal possession of narcotics after police discovered bottles and boxes containing drugs such as morphine and opium alkaloids in plain view inside a car in which he was a passenger; the driver had been arrested for driving while intoxicated. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant's knowledge of or control over the drugs. The core reasoning was that mere presence in the vehicle, without additional evidence of guilty knowledge, conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, does not support a finding of constructive possession, so the motion to exclude the state's evidence should have been granted. The court rejected claims of a fatal variance in the indictment and upheld the denial of the motion to suppress under the plain view doctrine.

criminal law

This case was an appeal from a conviction for larceny of an automobile valued at $900. The state's evidence showed that witnesses identified the defendant as the driver of the stolen car after it struck another vehicle while leaving a parking lot late at night, and he was detained at the scene. The defendant testified that a stranger had asked him to sit in the car and that he did not know how to drive, but the court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court further ruled that a motion for a lie detector test was properly denied under state law barring such evidence, that no record supported a claim about counsel at a preliminary hearing, and that refused jury charges were adequately covered by the court's instructions. The conviction was affirmed.

criminal law

The case involved the robbery conviction of a defendant who did not testify at trial. Over objection, the state introduced a photograph of a police lineup in which the defendant appeared disheveled, and during closing argument the prosecutor urged the jury to view the defendant as he appeared in the photo rather than as he had been presented in court with a 'polish job put on him by his lawyers.' The trial court overruled the defense objection to the argument. The appellate court held that the prosecutor's comment improperly addressed the defendant's appearance and imputed unethical conduct to defense counsel, in violation of established precedent and the Alabama Constitution, and that the lineup photograph lacked relevance because the in-court identifications were not based on the lineup. The judgment was therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appellant convicted of violating Section 106, Title 14 of the Alabama Code of 1940 based on the state's evidence, with no defense evidence presented. The trial court instructed the jury that if they believed the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, they must convict the defendant. The appellate court held this was reversible error under Alabama law, which prohibits the court from charging the jury on the effect of the testimony unless one party requests it in writing, and reversed and remanded the case. The opinion also addressed but did not resolve an issue regarding a refused jury charge on the presumption of innocence.

criminal lawprocedure

Louise Vander Wielen appealed her conviction for second-degree murder in the killing of her husband, Charles Vander Wielen, after she was jointly indicted with her son, Tommy Davidson, who allegedly struck the fatal blow with a baseball bat. The case centered on the circumstances of the killing, which the defense claimed occurred in self-defense, along with challenges to the jury instructions on the duty to retreat, the admissibility of a search of her home, evidence regarding the deceased's habits, and the voluntariness of her confession. The court found no error in the trial court's rulings on the jury charge regarding retreat, the search (due to abandonment), or the confession, but reversed the conviction because the evidence only showed that Vander Wielen helped remove the body after the fact, with no proof that she struck the blow, aided or abetted the killing beforehand, or participated in a conspiracy. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for insufficient evidence to support the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Luther Neal, who was convicted of larceny by trick for participating in a 'pigeon drop' scheme and sentenced to ten years in prison. The conviction rested in part on physical evidence, including play money and related items, seized during a warrantless search of Neal's home after his arrest on an unrelated charge of flight to avoid prosecution in Georgia. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the search exceeded the scope permissible as incident to that arrest under pre-Chimel standards, because the officers lacked any basis to search for fruits, weapons, or evidence connected to the flight charge itself. The court therefore reversed the conviction and remanded the case, while noting that the Chimel decision limiting such searches would not apply retroactively to this trial.

criminal lawprocedure

Sparks v. State was a criminal appeal challenging a robbery conviction and ten-year sentence based on evidence that the defendant and two accomplices robbed Wendell West at gunpoint in his home, stole his car, and were later stopped by police. The Alabama Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find guilt, that the defendant failed to prove any lack of evidence before the grand jury or entitlement to grand jury testimony, and that claims regarding absent jurors and alleged bailiff misconduct did not establish reversible error. The court reasoned that the trial judge properly denied the motions to quash and for production of records, correctly managed jury selection under state statutes, and that any jury deliberation issues did not affect the verdict's validity.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal from a conviction for possessing, transporting, or offering marijuana for sale, based on evidence found during a warrantless search of the defendant's car after he reported a robbery. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search lacked consent or probable cause and was not incident to a lawful arrest, but the trial court denied the motion and admitted the evidence at trial. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant was offering marijuana for sale and that the trial court erred by preventing defense counsel from commenting on the state's failure to call a key witness who had accused the defendant of dealing drugs.

criminal law

This case involved Marvin Reynolds appealing his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, challenging both the validity of the search warrant affidavit and the manner of its execution by police officers. The court found the affidavit sufficient to establish probable cause, as the informant's recent purchase combined with language indicating the drugs were currently present at the location. However, the conviction was reversed because the officers entered the home forcibly after knocking but without announcing their identity or possession of a warrant, in violation of Alabama Code Title 15, Section 108, and without any particularized justification beyond general concerns about evidence destruction in narcotics cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James June Baggett, who was convicted of assault with intent to murder after he entered a Bessemer, Alabama store with a gun, announced a robbery, fired a shot that passed through an employee's pants leg, and took money from the cash register. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that evidence of a bullet from the defendant's gun found in the body of a man killed in another robbery was properly admitted because it tended to prove the defendant's identity and intent in the charged offense. The court also rejected the defendant's speedy trial claim, finding no affirmative prior demand for an earlier trial in the record and noting that some delays resulted from the defendant's own continuance request or court scheduling issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Marion Hooks, who was indicted for first-degree murder after a fight with Van Wilford White that resulted in White's death from brain hemorrhage due to trauma; Hooks was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison. On appeal, Hooks challenged the trial court's limits on his opening statement, the refusal of certain jury charges, a juror's use of shorthand notes during testimony and instructions, and a supplemental charge to the jury regarding deliberations. The court held that the evidence supported the verdict, that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in controlling the opening statement or refuse proper charges, that juror note-taking did not warrant reversal, and that the supplemental charge was not coercive, with the verdict not impeachable by post-trial juror testimony. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the record.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hughes v. State, the appellant pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary, was adjudged guilty, and had his application for probation denied by the trial court, after which he appealed both the conviction and the probation denial. The court ruled that the appeal from the order denying probation must be dismissed because Alabama law permits criminal appeals only from judgments of conviction, not from post-judgment orders like probation denials absent specific statutory authorization. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, as the denial of probation is not reviewable on appeal from the conviction and lies entirely within the trial court's discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged in a single-count indictment with unlawfully possessing, selling, furnishing, or giving away opium. After a jury found the defendant guilty and the trial court imposed a ten-year sentence plus a $20,000 fine, the defendant challenged the indictment via a post-arraignment motion to dismiss, arguing that the charged offenses were not of the same character or subject to the same punishment under Alabama law. The court held that the indictment was defective because possession carried a lesser penalty range than selling or furnishing, making joinder improper under the statute and precedent, and that the motion should have been granted. It further ruled that evidence from a motel room search was improperly admitted because the state failed to prove the items were narcotics, rendering it prejudicial. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Cecil Boyington's conviction under Alabama law for committing a crime against nature with another man, based on an indictment that charged the offense using the language of the statute without additional details. Boyington demurred to the indictment, arguing it failed to charge a crime, did not follow the statutory form, and did not adequately inform him of the charge to defend against, but the trial court overruled the demurrer. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that an indictment phrased in the statutory terms was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge because the offense is well-known and does not require further definition. The court also found that the trial judge's oral instructions to the jury on the presumption of innocence and burden of proof adequately covered several refused written charges requested by the defense.

criminal lawprocedure