§

Houston v. State

565 So. 2d 277 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
Houston v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. Brownfield v. State

    44 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 43 times
    Finding testimony not to be inadmissible hearsay but to explain why the authorities were telephoned

    In Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), this Court stated that "[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.'" Further, "[t]his is true even where the cumulative evidence which is excluded relative to the defense being presented."

  3. 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.

  4. Smith v. State

    838 So. 2d 413 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that the prosecutor's comments were proper in that they were making "inferences and conclusions from the evidence."

    Townsell v. State, 255 Ala. 495, 498, 52 So.2d 186, 189 (1951).' Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277, 279 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). See also Tombrello v. State, 421 So.2d 1319, 1322 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Carson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 413, 272 So.2d 619, 622 (1973).

  5. Bryant v. State

    727 So. 2d 870 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)   Cited 20 times
    Stating where alleged prosecutorial misconduct in telling defense witness that she was being investigated caused her to be unavailable: "We find that a mistrial would have been too drastic a remedy, given the fact that the gist of Ms. Wilson's testimony had already been established through the testimony of other witnesses."

    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.' Ex parte Lawson, 476 So.2d 122, (Ala. 1985)."Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). Because Bryant was permitted to present ample evidence pertaining to his mental state, any error in sustaining the state's objections to defense counsel's cross-examination of Lester was harmless.

  6. Wright v. State

    628 So. 2d 1071 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 2 times
    In Wright v. State, 628 So.2d 1071 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993), the trial judge, when ruling on a motion for a mistrial, stated that if the motion was granted he would sentence Wright to the maximum sentence.

    The alleged bias or prejudice that a judge has to a party must be personal. Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277, 280 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990); Ex parte Whisenhant, 555 So.2d 235, 238 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 943, 110 S.Ct. 3230, 110 L.Ed.2d 676 (1990). Additionally, the bias must stem from an extrajudicial source.