Ex Parte Woodson

8 Citing cases

  1. Belisle v. State

    11 So. 3d 256 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that a six-pound can of peas could be a "deadly weapon"

    "In applying this caselaw to the circumstances before us, we recognize, 'Each case of alleged error in the admission of a fingerprint record taken pursuant to another criminal offense and prior to the charge for which the accused is presently on trial must be judged upon its own merits.' Buchannon v. State, 554 So.2d 477, 480 (Ala.Cr.App.) (quoting Woodson v. State, 405 So.2d 967, 969 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 969 (Ala. 1981)), cert. denied, 554 So.2d 494 (Ala. 1989), overruled on other ground by Pardue v. State, 571 So.2d 333 (Ala. 1990). We start with the premise that '[t]he mere existence of recorded fingerprints does not per se imply the existence of a criminal record.'

  2. Thomas v. State

    824 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 58 times
    Recognizing that to rise to the level of plain error, an error must have affected the outcome of the trial

    In applying this caselaw to the circumstances before us, we recognize, "Each case of alleged error in the admission of a fingerprint record taken pursuant to another criminal offense and prior to the charge for which the accused is presently on trial must be judged upon its own merits." Buchannon v. State, 554 So.2d 477, 480 (Ala.Cr.App.) (quotingWoodson v. State, 405 So.2d 967, 969 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 969 (Ala. 1981)), cert. denied, 554 So.2d 494 (Ala. 1989),overruled on other ground by Pardue v. State, 571 So.2d 333 (Ala. 1990). We start with the premise that "[t]he mere existence of recorded fingerprints does not per se imply the existence of a criminal record."Brown, 369 So.2d at 884.

  3. Lewis v. State

    488 So. 2d 1362 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    In a case which considered the possible prejudicial effect of the introduction into evidence of a defendant's fingerprint card, this court, per Judge Bowen, noted that "The mere existence of recorded fingerprints does not per se imply the existence of a criminal record." Woodson v. State, 405 So.2d 967, 968 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 969 (Ala. 1981), quoting Brown v. State, 369 So.2d 881, 884 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979). In concluding that there was no error in the admission of the defendant's fingerprint card in Woodson, this court reasoned as follows:

  4. Gratton v. State

    456 So. 2d 865 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)   Cited 26 times
    Holding defendant is guilty of burglary provided he formed intent to commit another crime when he entered or while he remained unlawfully

    "The general rule . . . is that the admission of a defendant's fingerprint identification card is not impermissibly prejudicial to the defendant where the card was altered prior to its introduction so that it did not disclose the defendant's criminal record." Woodson v. State, 405 So.2d 967, 968 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Woodson, 405 So.2d 969 (Ala. 1981). The fact that the fingerprint card was made at the Birmingham City Jail does not, in and of itself, imply the existence of a past criminal record.

  5. Maples v. State

    758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that the trial court did not err in allowing jury's review of videotaped confession and audiotape of 911 call in open court

    In Woodson v. State, 405 So.2d 967 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 969 (Ala. 1981), we set forth the following general rule for the admission of fingerprint cards: "[T]he admission of a defendant's fingerprint identification card is not impermissibly prejudicial to the defendant where the card was altered prior to its introduction so that it did not disclose the defendant's criminal record.

  6. Zumbado v. State

    615 So. 2d 1223 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 131 times
    Striking of prospective juror in a forgery case because she worked at a financial institution and prosecutor did not think that she would be a good juror was a race-neutral reason and was related to the facts of the case

    We have repeatedly held that it is not the province of this court to reweigh the evidence presented at trial. E.g., Franklin v. State, 405 So.2d 969, 964 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert denied, 405 So.2d 966 (Ala. 1981); Crumpton v. State, 402 So.2d 1081, 1065 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 402 So.21 1088 (Ala. 1961); Nobis v. State, 401 So.2d 191, 198 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert, denied, 401 So.2d 204 (Ala.l981). '"[T]he credibility of witnesses and the weight or probative force of testimony is for the jury to judge and determine."'

  7. Buchannon v. State

    554 So. 2d 477 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 33 times
    In Buchannon, the Court of Criminal Appeals made a distinction between the perpetrator who equips himself with a weapon prior to the crime and the perpetrator who steals a weapon during the crime, stating: "The mere showing that the defendant stole a weapon during the course of a burglary or robbery, without more, does not constitute being 'armed.

    " Baldwin v. State, 456 So.2d 117, 121 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), affirmed, 456 So.2d 129 (Ala. 1984), affirmed, 472 U.S. 372, 105 S.Ct. 2727, 86 L.Ed.2d 300 (1985). The effect of this rule on the admission of fingerprint cards was addressed by this court in Woodson v. State, 405 So.2d 967 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 969 (Ala. 1981), wherein we stated: "The general rule . . . is that the admission of a defendant's fingerprint identification card is not impermissibly prejudicial to the defendant where the card was altered prior to its introduction so that it did not disclose the defendant's criminal record.

  8. Ash v. State

    424 So. 2d 1381 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 30 times
    In Ash v. State, 424 So.2d 1381 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982), the Court of Criminal Appeals said that the issue of the admissibility of the juvenile's statement had to be addressed at the transfer hearing because of ยง 12-15-66 (b).

    Consequently, the finding of voluntariness must be upheld unless palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence. Woodson v. State, 405 So.2d 967 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Woodson, 405 So.2d 969 (Ala. 1981); Thompson v. State, 347 So.2d 1371 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Thompson, 347 So.2d 1377 (Ala. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1018, 98 S.Ct. 740, 54 L.Ed.2d 765 (1978). "(I)t is not unusual for the voluntariness inquiry to present conflicting evidence.