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.
§

Carr v. State

551 So. 2d 1169 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Carr v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Carroll

    627 So. 2d 874 (Ala. 1993)   Cited 122 times
    Applying Hubbard to § 13A-5-40

    The question whether a defendant intentionally caused the death of another person is a question of fact for the jury. Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). Intent may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon or from other attendant circumstances.

  2. Chapman v. State

    196 So. 3d 322 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that there was sufficient evidence upon which to admit the victim’s statement as a dying declaration where the victim was "bleeding profusely [h]is "breathing was labored, and it hurt him to speak"

    “Whether a defendant intentionally caused the death of another person is a question of fact for the jury. Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). Intent may be presumed from the use of a deadly weapon or from other circumstances.

  3. Johnson v. State

    256 So. 3d 684 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    "Whether a defendant intentionally caused the death of another person is a question of fact for the jury. Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). Intent may be presumed from the use of a deadly weapon or from other circumstances.

  4. Turner v. State

    924 So. 2d 737 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)   Cited 99 times
    Urging Alabama Supreme Court to reconsider Perry v. State, supra, 310, as outdated in "light of the abundant [case law] in other jurisdictions"

    "`The question of whether a defendant intentionally caused the death of another person is a question of fact for the jury. Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989).' Ex parte Carroll, 627 So.2d 874 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171 (1994). `The question of intent is hardly ever capable of direct proof.

  5. Miller v. State

    913 So. 2d 1148 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that "[u]nder the circumstances of this case, defense counsel made a well-reasoned decision to focus his efforts on that part of the trial that he believed offered the greatest chance of success. We see no reason to second-guess defense counsel's decisions regarding this strategy."

    "The question whether a defendant intentionally caused the death of another person is a question of fact for the jury. Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989)." Ex parte Carroll, 627 So.2d 874, 878 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171, 114 S.Ct. 1207, 127 L.Ed.2d 554 (1994).

  6. Blount v. State

    876 So. 2d 509 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    Whether a defendant intentionally caused the death of another person is a question of fact for the jury.Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Intent may be presumed from the use of a deadly weapon or from other circumstances.Barnes v. State, 571 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990).

  7. Dorsey v. State

    881 So. 2d 460 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)   Cited 24 times
    In Dorsey v. State, 881 So.2d 460 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), reversed on other grounds, 881 So.2d 533 (Ala.2003), this Court, in addressing a similar claim of error, upheld the trial court's decision.

    "The question of whether a defendant intentionally caused the death of another person is a question of fact for the jury. Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989)." Ex parte Carroll, 627 So.2d 874 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171, 114 S.Ct. 1207, 127 L.Ed.2d 554 (1994).

  8. Dorsey v. State

    No. CR-97-1522 (Ala. Crim. App. May. 25, 2001)   Cited 2 times

    "The question of whether a defendant intentionally caused the death of another person is a question of fact for the jury. Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989)." Ex parte Carroll, 627 So.2d 874 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171 (1994). "The question of intent is hardly ever capable of direct proof.

  9. Youngblood v. State

    656 So. 2d 385 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)   Cited 14 times

    Whether the appellant intentionally caused the death of the victim is a question of fact for the jury. Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury.

  10. Sistrunk v. State

    599 So. 2d 87 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    He further testified that he went to the hospital and that he was treated by Dr. Charles Feagin. In reviewing this issue, we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Carr v. State, 551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Cumbo v. State, 368 So.2d 871 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), cert. denied, Ex parte Cumbo, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979). We conclude, after review of the evidence under these authorities, that there was sufficient evidence to convict Sistrunk of second degree assault.