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.
§

Britton v. State

631 So. 2d 1073 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Britton v. State

19 Citing cases

  1. Adams v. State

    907 So. 2d 1079 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)

    However, strict compliance with the statute is required for the results of the tests made pursuant to the statute to be admissible. Id."Britton v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1076 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993) (emphasis added). The Implied Consent Act, § 32-5-192, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:

  2. Stewart v. State

    730 So. 2d 1203 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that it was harmless error for circuit court not to make specific findings of fact concerning those aggravating circumstances that it found did not apply in the case

    " Britton v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1078-79 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993). The appellant was not being interrogated when he made the statements to Deputy Davenport.

  3. Commonwealth v. Bohigian

    486 Mass. 209 (Mass. 2020)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding BAC test results improperly were admitted where defendant did not consent to blood draw and remanding for new trial

    I would join with those courts construing the "no such test" language so as not to exclude test results obtained pursuant to a valid warrant. See, e.g., Britton v. State, 631 So. 2d 1073, 1076-1077 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) ; Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, at 10, 462 S.W.3d 650 ; State v. Smith, 134 S.W.3d 35, 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) ; Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613, 616-617 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ; State v. Stone, 229 W. Va. 271, 284, 728 S.E.2d 155 (2012). See also Brown v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1001, 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (noting statutory silence on question and concluding that "provisions of the implied consent law do not act either individually or collectively to prevent a law enforcement officer from obtaining a blood sample pursuant to a search warrant").

  4. State v. Williams

    977 S.W.2d 101 (Tenn. 1998)   Cited 332 times
    Holding that failure to instruct on voluntary manslaughter in first degree murder case was harmless error because second degree murder was instructed and "by finding the defendant guilty of the highest offense to the exclusion of the immediately lesser offense, second degree murder, the jury necessarily rejected all other lesser offenses, including voluntary manslaughter"

    "); State v. No Heart, 353 N.W.2d 43 (S.D. 1984) ("In view of the fact that the jury had an opportunity to consider a lesser included offense (grand theft), but returned a verdict of guilty on the greater offense, we can see no prejudicial error in the trial court's failure to also instruct on petty theft first degree and petty theft second degree."); State v. Gotschall, 782 P.2d 459 (Utah 1989) ("We conclude that even if it was error for the trial court not to instruct the jury on negligent homicide . . . the error was harmless. The jury had the opportunity to find that [the defendant] acted with a lesser mental state than that required for second degree murder when it was given a manslaughter instruction, yet it convicted Gotschall of second degree murder."); Britton v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1080 (Ala.Crim. App. 1993) ("[T]rial court's failure to charge the jury on vehicular homicide as a lesser included offense of murder is harmless error where the jury was charged on the lesser included offense of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide and it rejected those offenses and found the defendant guilty of murder."); Ridgely v. State, 739 P.2d 1299, 1301 (Alaska App. 1987) ("Given the jury's rejection of second-degree murder as a lesser included offense, it is evident that [the defendant] suffered no prejudice, even assuming the challenged manslaughter instruction was inadequate."); People v. Dominguez, 11 Cal.App.4th 1342, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 46, 52 (1992) (Failure to instruct on additional lesser included offense of grand theft in trial on charges of first-degree residential robbery was harmless error, where jury was properly instructed on lesser included offense of petty theft.); People v. Zak, 184 Mich. App. 1, 457 N.W.2d 59, 66 (1990) ("Where the trial court instructs on a lesser included offens

  5. Ex Parte Clark

    728 So. 2d 1126 (Ala. 1998)   Cited 85 times
    Observing that flight instructions are proper when supported by the evidence in the record

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See also Britton v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1078 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993); Williams v. State, 601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991)."Worthington v. State, 652 So.2d 790, 792-93 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994).

  6. Shanklin v. State

    No. CR-11-1441 (Ala. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2015)

    "'"'"Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). See also Britton v. State, 631 So. 2d 1073, 1078 (Ala. Cr. App. 1993); Williams v. State, 601 So. 2d 1062, 1072 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991)

  7. Shanklin v. State

    187 So. 3d 734 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 30 times
    Noting that, in capital-murder cases, claims in briefs not in compliance with Rule 28 are reviewed for plain error

    See also Britton v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1078 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) ; Williams v. State, 601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.1991)." ’

  8. Woolf v. State

    220 So. 3d 338 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant was not intoxicated at the time he waived his Miranda rights where the evidence did not indicate when the defendant had ingested alcohol and drugs or what effect those substances had on the defendant when he made his statement

    " ' " ' Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See also Britton v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1078 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) ; Williams v. State, 601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).' " ' "

  9. Brown v. State

    982 So. 2d 565 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that the prosecutor's reason for exercising peremptory strikes against three African–American veniremembers who had criminal convictions and who each had failed to respond when questioned as to whether they had any prior convictions, was race neutral for purposes of capital-murder defendant's Batson challenge

    "'" Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See also Britton v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1078 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993); Williams v. State, 601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991)."'" Maples v. State, 758 So.2d at 42-13, quoting Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126, 1132 (Ala. 1998), quoting in turn Worthington v. State, 652 So.2d 790, 792-93 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994).

  10. Snowden v. State

    968 So. 2d 1004 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)   Cited 12 times
    In Snowden v. State, 968 So.2d 1004 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), this Court upheld against a double-jeopardy challenge convictions for both trafficking in methamphetamine and manufacturing methamphetamine arising out of the same act or transaction, specifically finding that trafficking in methamphetamine under § 13A–12–231(11), Ala.Code 1975, and manufacturing methamphetamine under § 13A–12–217, Ala.Code 1975, each require proof of an element that the other does not and, thus, that they were not the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy.

    "' Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See also Britton v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1078 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993); Williams v. State, 601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991).' " Worthington v. State, 652 So.2d 790, 792-93 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994)."