Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Houston v. State

565 So. 2d 277 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Houston v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Waldrop v. State

    987 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)   Cited 50 times
    Adopting the finding that, although "how much detail she provided" is unknown, Mr. Waldrop's mother "did confirm that she did provide this information to [trial counsel]"

    "'[T]he exclusion of admissible evidence does not constitute reversible error where the evidence "would have been merely cumulative of other evidence of the same nature, which was admitted."' Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990)." Nettles v. State, 683 So.2d 9, 13 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996).

  2. Smith v. State

    745 So. 2d 922 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 45 times
    Stating that the exclusion of admissible evidence does not constitute reversible error when the evidence would have been merely cumulative of other evidence of the same nature that was admitted

    "'[W]here objection is sustained, but the party, nevertheless, proceeds to get in the evidence sought, in substance and effect, which is not excluded and remains for the jury's consideration, the initial ruling, if erroneous, is harmless.'"Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), quotingRoberson v. State, 233 Ala. 442, 444, 172 So. 250, 251 (1937). The appellant also contends that the state failed to timely disclose the existence of the pending charges against McMillian and Looney, and that its failure to do so violated a discovery motion that granted the defense discovery of all pending criminal charges of any of the state's witnesses. He claims that he was not informed of any pending charges until after he attempted to cross-examine McMillian and Looney and that, therefore, he is entitled to a new trial.

  3. Davis v. Allen

    Civil Action No. CV 07-S-518-E (N.D. Ala. May. 26, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    "The exclusion of admissible evidence does not constitute reversible error where the evidence 'would have been merely cumulative of other evidence of the same nature, which was admitted.'" Houston v. State, 565 So. 2d 277, 281 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (quoting Ex parte Lawson, 476 So. 2d 122, 122 (Ala. 1985)). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above we find no reversible error.

  4. Davis v. State

    9 So. 3d 514 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 52 times
    Applying Rule 32 procedural bar sua sponte and stating that “this Court has no authority to modify or amend the procedural bars contained in Rule 32”

    "The exclusion of admissible evidence does not constitute reversible error where the evidence 'would have been merely cumulative of other evidence of the same nature, which was admitted.'" Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990) (quoting Ex parte Lawson, 476 So.2d 122, 122 (Ala. 1985)). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above we find no reversible error.

  5. Alley v. State

    882 S.W.2d 810 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)   Cited 378 times
    Holding that as a general principle, an appellant must make an offer of proof of excluded evidence he seeks to have admitted unless its substance is otherwise apparent

    To disqualify, prejudice must be of a personal character, directed at the litigant, "must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from . . . participation in the case." Id.; see also United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1710, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966); Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990). Personal bias involves an antagonism toward the moving party, Baker, 441 F. Supp. at 616, but does not refer to any views that a judge may have regarding the subject matter at issue.