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.
ยง

Brodka v. State

53 Ala. App. 125 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Brodka v. State

29 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. State

    581 So. 2d 497 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 56 times

    1989). See Kuenzel; Crowe v. State, 485 So.2d 351, 363 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 485 So.2d 373 (Ala. 1985); Brodka v. State, 53 Ala. App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974); see also Pierce v. State, 576 So.2d 236 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). 3.

  2. State v. Lewis

    328 S.C. 273 (S.C. 1997)   Cited 16 times

    State v. Gardner, 219 S.C. 97, 107, 64 S.E.2d 130, 135 (1951), citing Anderson v. State, 148 S.W. 802 (Tex.App. 1912). See Brodka v. State, 298 So.2d 55 (Ala. 1974) (evidence was insufficient to sustain plea of insanity and court was justified in instructing jury to that effect despite defendant's testimony he was depressed, upset, "something just came over him," and he "didn't know what he was doing at the time of the shooting"); McClendon v. State, 278 S.E.2d 96 (Ga.App. 1981) (testimony that just prior to assault defendant was "going crazy," was not evidence defendant did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong); State v. Roy, 60 P.2d 646 (N.M. 1936) (evidence defendant was "polluted half the time or crazy or something" after the death of his wife, cried, "wasn't himself," and on the day of the homicide "looked kind of wild in his eyes . . . just looked something out of the ordinary; figgety [sic], like" did not show at time of crime defendant was not able to distinguish right from wrong); State v. Davis, 334 S.E.2d 509 (N.C.App. 1985) (defendant's testimony at time of the homicide he "lost [his] mind," "was so mixed u

  3. Siler v. State

    705 So. 2d 552 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that polygraph examiner's testimony regarding conversation he had with defendant was admissible when there was no mention of a polygraph

    on return to remand, 625 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala. 1993)], like this appellant, argued that the photographs showed advanced decomposition of the body. Still, we held that the photographs were admissible. Brodka v. State, 53 Ala. App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974), and cases cited therein. "We find no reason to hold otherwise in the cause sub judice.

  4. Pierce v. State

    576 So. 2d 236 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 55 times
    In Pierce, we concluded that "Sheriff Whittle was in fact a key witness for the State," 851 So.2d at 610, and found "undisputed evidence indicating [Sheriff Whittle] had close and continual contact with the jury," 851 So.2d at 612, in violation of Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965).

    Kuenzel. See also St. John v. State, 523 So.2d 521 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987), cert. denied (Ala. 1988); Crowe v. State, 485 So.2d 351 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 485 So.2d 373 (Ala. 1985); Brodka v. State, 53 Ala. App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974). See also Henderson.

  5. Kuenzel v. State

    577 So. 2d 474 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 348 times
    Holding that, under certain circumstances, the use of a deadly weapon gives rise to the legal presumption of malice and intent

    Under the Alabama Crime Victim's Court Attendance Act, Ala. Code 1975, ยง 15-14-50 through ยง 15-14-57, the victim's daughter, as the victim's representative, had a right and was "entitled" to be present in court. See also, Crowe v. State, 485 So.2d 351, 363 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Brodka v. State, 53 Ala. App. 125, 132, 298 So.2d 55 (1974). At the penalty phase of the trial, the district attorney made the following argument to the jury in closing:

  6. Dabbs v. State

    518 So. 2d 825 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 40 times
    In Dabbs v. State, 518 So.2d 825, 829 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987), we stated that even though autopsy photographs of a victim's head injuries, as viewed internally, may be gruesome, admission of such photos is sometimes necessary to demonstrate the extent of the victim's injuries.

    There was no error by the admission of the photographs into evidence. Brodka v. State, 53 Ala. App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974). The judgment of the trial court is due to be, and is hereby, affirmed.

  7. Few v. State

    518 So. 2d 835 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 9 times
    In Few v. State, 518 So.2d 835 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), cert. denied, (Ala. 1988), the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for mistrial where, immediately after an outburst by a relative of the murder victim during trial, the court instructed the jury to disregard the outburst.

    It is well established in Alabama courts that relatives of the victims can be present in the courtroom during the trial. Howard v. State, 273 Ala. 544, 142 So.2d 685 (1962); Lehr v. State, 398 So.2d 791 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Hall v. State, 377 So.2d 1123 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 377 So.2d 1128 (Ala. 1979); Kendrick v. State, 55 Ala. App. 683, 318 So.2d 378 (1975); Brodka v. State, 53 Ala. App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974); Pollard v. State, 12 Ala. App. 82, 68 So. 494, reversed on other grounds, Ex parte Pollard, 193 Ala. 32, 69 So. 425 (1915). The appellant has shown no valid reason why the victim's family should not have been allowed to attend the trial.

  8. Brown v. State

    541 So. 2d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)

    C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, ยง 207.01(2) (3d ed. 1977); Peterson v. State, 350 So.2d 771 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977). Brodka v. State, 53 Ala. App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974). In addition, "[t]he time span between the time of the occurrence and the taking of the photograph does not render the photograph inadmissible."

  9. Hamilton v. State

    492 So. 2d 331 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 20 times

    "'Carpenter v. State, 400 So.2d 417 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Cheatham v. State, 431 So.2d 1350 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Brodka v. State, 53 Ala. App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974). "`". . . As a general rule photographs are admissible in evidence if they tend to prove or disprove some disputed or material issue, to illustrate or elucidate some other relevant fact or evidence, to corroborate or disprove some other evidence offered or to be offered, and their admission is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.

  10. Saffold v. State

    485 So. 2d 806 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 15 times

    Barnes v. State, 445 So.2d 995 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984). Our review of the record reveals no such abuse. Smarr v. State, 260 Ala. 30, 68 So.2d 6 (1953); Brodka v. State, 53 Ala. App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974). II