Andrews v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Ingram v. State

    629 So. 2d 800 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 31 times

    'There is no fixed length of time that is considered to be per se unreasonable. Andrews v. State, 370 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1979). Generally, the passage of time, standing alone, is not enough to justify a holding that the guarantee of a speedy trial has been violated.

  2. Dyson v. State

    591 So. 2d 559 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    The question called for a purely speculative answer and was therefore improper. Andrews v. State, 370 So.2d 1070, 1074 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), writ denied, Ex parte Andrews, 370 So.2d 323 (Ala. 1979); Flanagan v. State, 369 So.2d 46 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979). The testimony elicited by the appellant's counsel concerning F.D.'s alleged flirtatious nature with other men was improper and was properly rejected by the trial court.

  3. Sheridan v. State

    591 So. 2d 129 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 45 times
    Stating that while a witness cannot testify as to facts not within his knowledge, he can testify to beliefs, thoughts, or impressions that were based in what he had an opportunity to observe

    It is undisputed that a witness cannot testify to facts that are not within the witness's knowledge. Andrews v. State, 370 So.2d 1070 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1979). It is also well settled that a witness can testify to his beliefs, thoughts, or impressions where he had the opportunity to observe. Williams v. State, 375 So.2d 1257 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 375 So.2d 1271 (Ala. 1979).

  4. Tate v. State

    435 So. 2d 190 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 38 times
    In Tate v. State, 435 So.2d 190 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), this court held that by introducing into evidence a certified copy of a court's minute entries, which note the accused's prior felony convictions, the state meets its burden of proof and a presumption arises that the prior convictions were proper. "If such former conviction, for any reason was void or insufficient to justify the enhancement of punishment provided for in the [Habitual Felony Offender] statute, the burden would be on the accused to present evidence of such matters."

    We do not see this as a break in the chain of custody for the first investigating officer to arrive at the crime scene in order to secure potential evidence. See, Andrews v. State, 370 So.2d 1070 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1979). Trooper Jones does not appear to have been involved in the custody of the vehicle at all, and appellant failed to develop any evidence otherwise at trial.

  5. Vickery v. State

    408 So. 2d 182 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)   Cited 9 times
    In Vickery, supra, our court, by emphasizing the last two lines of the prosecutor's remark, felt that those were the key words which necessitated the reversal of that case on that issue.

    United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313, 92 S.Ct. 455, 459, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971); Prince v. Alabama, 507 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1975); Turner v. State, 378 So.2d 1173 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 1182 (Ala. 1979). Clearly, a person becomes an "accused" for speedy trial purposes when an indictment is returned against him. Marion, 404 U.S. at 320, 92 S.Ct. at 463; Corn v. State, 387 So.2d 275 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 280 (Ala. 1980); Davis v. State, 387 So.2d 268 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 274 (Ala. 1980); Andrews v. State, 370 So.2d 1070 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1979). 1. Length of Delay.

  6. Corn v. State

    387 So. 2d 275 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that a 46-month delay was insufficient to warrant dismissal of case on speedy trial grounds

    However, this delay is not sufficient in and of itself to justify a finding that the guarantee of a speedy trial has been violated. Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S.Ct. at 2193; Jones v. Morris, 590 F.2d 684, 686 (7th Cir. 1979); Andrews v. State, 370 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1979). Assertion of Right: Despite and contrary to the defendant's contentions, both federal and state courts found that the defendant failed to establish that he had requested a speedy trial in either 1976 or 1977.

  7. Wade v. State

    381 So. 2d 1057 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that the third Barker factor weighed in the defendant's favor where the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial two months after his arrest and where there was no evidence indicating that he had knowledge of the indictment before the arrest

    "There is no fixed length of time that is considered to be per se unreasonable." Andrews v. State, 370 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1979). Generally, the passage of time, standing alone, is not enough to justify a holding that the guarantee of a speedy trial has been violated.