Ivey v. State

30 Citing cases

  1. Riley v. State

    166 So. 3d 705 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to find a defendant's drug addiction to be a mitigating circumstance where the evidence indicated that the defendant was not under the influence of drugs at the time of the murder

    He does not, however, argue that the evidence was inaccurate or misleading to the jury. See Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) (“Since the conditions were reasonably or substantially similar and the use of the mannequin was not calculated to unfairly prejudice the appellant, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the demonstration.”)

  2. Mitchell v. State

    84 So. 3d 968 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)   Cited 40 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no plain error in prosecutor's argument comparing the victim's rights to Mitchell's rights during the guilt-phase closing argument

    This Court notes that Mitchell does not argue and the record does not indicate that the mannequin heads were dissimilar to the heads of the victims. See Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) Whether to allow the prosecutor to use mannequins to aid the jury in understanding the trajectory of a bullet through a victim is within the sound discretion of the circuit court and a conviction " will not be reversed on appeal unless [that discretion] has been clearly and grossly abused."

  3. McCray v. State

    88 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that police officer's testimony that the victim's wounds were consistent with a knife found at the crime scene and were defensive wounds was admissible lay-witness testimony

    “See also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).”Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278–79 (Ala.Crim.App.1979).

  4. McCray v. State

    No. CR-06-0360 (Ala. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2010)

    "See also Eddy v. State, 352 So. 2d 1161 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977)." Ivey v. State, 369 So. 2d 1276, 1278-79 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979). In Gobble v. State, [Ms. CR-05-0225, February 5, 2010] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2010), this Court further explained the admissibility of experiments or demonstrations in the courtroom as follows:

  5. Thompson v. State

    153 So. 3d 84 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)

    “Whether to allow the prosecutor to use mannequins to aid the jury in understanding the trajectory of a bullet through a victim is within the sound discretion of the circuit court and a conviction ‘will not be reversed on appeal unless [that discretion] has been clearly and grossly abused.’ Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) (citations omitted). Further, this Court has held that the use of a mannequin to demonstrate a victim's injuries is relevant and admissible.

  6. Gobble v. State

    104 So. 3d 920 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that trial court's statement that "[t]he jury's verdict establishes the existence of this aggravating circumstance in an unanimous vote and the evidence supports the verdict" was insufficient to comply with § 13A-5-47(d)

    In Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Crim.App.1979), this Court considered whether the circuit court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant using a full-size mannequin to test the credibility of the defendant's version of the events. We stated:

  7. Thompson v. State

    153 So. 3d 84 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)

    “Whether to allow the prosecutor to use mannequins to aid the jury in understanding the trajectory of a bullet through a victim is within the sound discretion of the circuit court and a conviction ‘will not be reversed on appeal unless [that discretion] has been clearly and grossly abused.’ Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) (citations omitted). Further, this Court has held that the use of a mannequin to demonstrate a victim's injuries is relevant and admissible.

  8. Gobble v. State

    No. CR-05-0225 (Ala. Crim. App. Feb. 5, 2010)

    In Ivey v. State, 369 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979), this Court considered whether the circuit court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant using a full-size mannequin to test the credibility of the defendant's version of the events. We stated:

  9. Quinlivan v. State

    627 So. 2d 1082 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 24 times
    In Quinlivan, the appellant argued that immediately before he fatally shot the victim, the victim had threatened him with a knife under circumstances indicating the victim's intent to harm him with the knife.

    As depictions of a theory illustrating the trajectory of the bullets, the string photographs were admissible. In Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 369 So.2d 1281 (Ala. 1979), this Court observed that testimony about the " 'path of flight' or trajectory of the bullet," is unobjectionable. 369 So.2d at 1280 (on rehearing) (quoting Wilbanks v. State, 42 Ala. App. 39, 151 So.2d 741 (1962), cert. denied, 275 Ala. 701, 151 So.2d 744 (1963)).

  10. Chatom v. State

    591 So. 2d 101 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 2 times

    Other cases consistent with Smith also involved claims of accident or self-defense. See Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1281 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ denied, 369 So.2d 1281 (1979); Padgett v. State, 49 Ala. App. 130, 136, 269 So.2d 147, 152 (1972), cert. denied, 289 Ala. 749, 269 So.2d 154 (1972); Crawford v. State, 262 Ala. 191, 78 So.2d 291 (1955). In the present case, the appellant does not contend that the shooting of the two deputies was an accident.