Adams v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Thompson v. State

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

    Under the Frye standard, expert testimony concerning a scientific or medical principle will be admissible only when the proponent of the evidence establishes that the principle has achieved general acceptance in the scientific field to which it belongs. Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973, 98 S.Ct. 529, 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed.1972).

  2. Thompson v. State

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

    Under the Frye standard, expert testimony concerning a scientific or medical principle will be admissible only when the proponent of the evidence establishes that the principle has achieved general acceptance in the scientific field to which it belongs. Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) ; Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) ; Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973, 98 S.Ct. 529, 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977) ; McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed.1972).

  3. Smith v. State

    756 So. 2d 892 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)   Cited 110 times

    Counsel may comment, draw proper inferences, and draw conclusions from the evidence. Sasser, Speigner. The credibility of witnesses is also a legitimate subject of criticism and discussion by either party during closing arguments. Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Clark v. State, 462 So.2d 743 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984)." Owen v. State, 586 So.2d 958, 960-61 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). The challenged comments were legitimate inferences from the evidence introduced at trial or pertained to the credibility of witnesses.

  4. Hoosier v. State

    612 So. 2d 1352 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 9 times
    Disallowing opinion evidence offered by defendant that he did not fit the profile of a battering parent

    "Under the Frye standard, expert testimony concerning a scientific or medical principle will be admissible only when the proponent of the evidence establishes that the principle has achieved general acceptance in the scientific field to which it belongs. Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973, 98 S.Ct. 529, 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed. 1972)."Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554, 555 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), cert. denied, 507 So.2d 558 (Ala. 1987), concerned the admissibility of evidence of the "battered wife syndrome."

  5. McCray v. State

    591 So. 2d 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 5 times
    In McCray v. State, 591 So.2d 108 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), officials testified that although the appellant smelled of alcohol, "he 'could handle himself pretty well.

    We disagree. Whether the appellant was so intoxicated and mentally impaired that it would reduce murder to manslaughter was a question for the jury. See Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); Greer v. State, 475 So.2d 885 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). Although there was evidence that the appellant was intoxicated at the time of the shooting and that he was mildly mentally retarded, there was no evidence to show, as a matter of law, that he was so impaired and intoxicated that he was incapable of forming the required intent.

  6. Owen v. State

    586 So. 2d 958 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 14 times

    The credibility of witnesses is also a legitimate subject of criticism and discussion by either party during closing arguments. Adams v.State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985); Clark v. State, 462 So.2d 743 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984). A review of the record reveals that the comments cited by the appellant were either proper inferences drawn from the evidence or properly concerned the credibility of witnesses.

  7. Bankhead v. State

    585 So. 2d 97 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 251 times
    Holding “that statements of counsel in argument to the jury must be viewed as delivered in the heat of debate; such statements are usually valued by the jury at their true worth and are not expected to become factors in the formation of the verdict”

    The credibility of a witness is a legitimate subject for criticism and discussion by either party during closing arguments. Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143, 1146 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). Moreover, the prosecutor, in the appropriate case, may use opprobrious terms to characterize the accused or his conduct, provided that the remarks are in accord with the evidence.

  8. Hill v. State

    507 So. 2d 554 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 25 times
    In Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), we applied Frye standards in ruling that testimony of a clinical psychologist concerning "battered wife syndrome" was inadmissible (but see Ex parte Hill, 507 So.2d 558 (Ala. 1987), denying certiorari but expressing a different opinion.)

    The admissibility of medical and scientific expert testimony is governed by the Frye test. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923); Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 455 A.2d 893 (D.C.App. 1983). Under the Frye standard, expert testimony concerning a scientific or medical principle will be admissible only when the proponent of the evidence establishes that the principle has achieved general acceptance in the scientific field to which it belongs. Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973, 98 S.Ct. 529, 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed. 1972). The danger of a jury's according undue weight to unproven and perhaps unreliable scientific testimony justifies excluding such evidence.