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

24 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  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. 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).

  5. Dotch v. State

    67 So. 3d 936 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that the circuit court was not required to instruct the jury regarding its consideration of prior conviction evidence when that evidence had been admitted to establish motive

    "'Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.' "See also Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala. Crim.App. 1990) (holding 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."')• In this case, much of the information that was included in the excluded documentation was not relevant and could have resulted in a confusion of the issues for the jury.

  6. 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.

  7. 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."

  8. Grayson v. State

    824 So. 2d 804 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that defendant kidnapped hitchhiker even though victim voluntarily entered defendant's car

    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, 272 So.2d 619, 622 (Ala.Cr.App. 1973).

  9. Newton v. State

    78 So. 3d 458 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)   Cited 24 times
    Upholding the refusal of requested instructions that required the jury to find certain evidence to constitute mitigating circumstances

    "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."See also Houston v. State, 565 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) (holding 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’ "). In this case, much of the information that was included in the excluded documentation was not relevant and could have resulted in a confusion of the issues for the jury.

  10. 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.