McCulloch v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Hayes v. State

    443 So. 2d 1323 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)   Cited 5 times

    See also Blackburn v. State, 38 Ala. App. 143, 88 So.2d 199 (1954). The case of McCulloch v. State, 338 So.2d 187 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976), involved the introduction of items found on an accomplice at the time of arrest shortly after a burglary. Although the two defendants could not be identified as the burglars, they were identified as the men arrested near the scene of the crime, and one was in possession of ski masks, gloves, and a bag containing drugs.

  2. Ware v. State

    409 So. 2d 886 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)   Cited 42 times
    In Ware, by "all fair inferences," one could conclude that the appellant owned the tools and "almost certainly used them in the burglary where he was clearly a participant," 409 So.2d at 892, even though the tools were found in the back of the truck belonging to an accomplice.

    " In McCulloch v. State, 338 So.2d 187 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976) the trial court admitted into evidence ski masks, rubber gloves and a mask found in the possession of the accused's accomplice after the burglary had taken place. In holding those items properly admitted this court wrote:

  3. Poole v. State

    505 So. 2d 1065 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    " 'They were portions of the circumstances that combined to establish defendant's criminal intent in breaking and entering the store.' " Ware v. State, 409 So.2d 886, 893 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), writ quashed, Ex parte Ware, 409 So.2d 893 (Ala. 1982), quoting McCulloch v. State, 338 So.2d 187, 188 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976). In Ware, by "all fair inferences," one could conclude that the appellant owned the tools and "almost certainly used them in the burglary where he was clearly a participant," 409 So.2d at 892, even though the tools were found in the back of the truck belonging to an accomplice.

  4. Woods v. State

    387 So. 2d 313 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 7 times

    We find in Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, ยง 195.03 (8), (3rd Ed. 1977): "The state may prove, against the accused, the existence after the crime, of a physical fact which tends to show the guilt of his coconspirator." McCulloch v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 187 (1976). III

  5. Diamond v. State

    363 So. 2d 109 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 42 times
    In Diamond, the prosecutor commented in his closing argument: "I don't have to tell you how it [drugs] hurts the young people in this community, how they prey on them. It robs them of their minds, it robs them of their athletic ability because of people like him [defendant]....

    We cannot say that the statement in this case was so injurious as to deprive the appellant of a fair trial. Price v. State, 348 So.2d 517 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977); McCulloch v. State, 338 So.2d 187 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976). B.

  6. Whitt v. State

    370 So. 2d 730 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 2 times

    "Where the State's evidence does stand uncontradicted, the prosecutor does have the right to point this out to the jury." Beecher v. State, 294 Ala. 674, 320 So.2d 727 (1975); McCulloch v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 187 (1976). The general rule is that such statements by the prosecutor to the effect that the State's evidence stands uncontradicted are permissible and are not direct references to appellant's failure to testify where the defendant is not the only person capable of contradicting the State's proof.