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.
§

Cobb v. State

50 Ala. App. 707 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Cobb v. State

39 Citing cases

  1. Hinton v. State

    172 So. 3d 338 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    “Whether a witness can be covered with the expert veil depends on his acquired knowledge in a field of endeavor not ventured into by the layman. If that knowledge extends beyond or supersedes that of an ordinary witness, as determined by the trial judge, the witness can become an expert.” Cobb v. State, 50 Ala.App. 707, 710, 282 So.2d 327, 329 (Ala.Crim.App.1973). As explained in Charles v. State, 350 So.2d 730 (Ala.Crim.App.1977):

  2. Hinton v. State

    No. CR-04-0940 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 26, 2011)

    If that knowledge extends beyond or supersedes that of an ordinary witness, as determined by the trial judge, the witness can become an expert." Cobb v. State, 50 Ala. App. 707, 710, 282 So. 2d 327, 329 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973). As explained in Charles v. State, 350 So. 2d 730 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977):

  3. Hinton v. State

    172 So. 3d 338 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)   Cited 4 times

    If that knowledge extends beyond or supersedes that of an ordinary witness, as determined by the trial judge, the witness can become an expert.” Cobb v. State, 50 Ala.App. 707, 710, 282 So.2d 327, 329 (Ala.Crim.App.1973). As explained in Charles v. State, 350 So.2d 730 (Ala.Crim.App.1977) :

  4. George v. State

    No. 1190490 (Ala. Jan. 8, 2021)

    [An appellate court] will not disturb the trial judge's finding of expert qualifications vel non, unless there is a clear abuse of this discretion." ' Slay v. Keller Indus., Inc., 823 So. 2d 623, 625 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Cobb v. State, 50 Ala. App. 707, 710, 282 So. 2d 327, 329 (1973))." 261 So. 3d at 177.

  5. Mazda Motor Corp. v. Hurst

    261 So. 3d 167 (Ala. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    Discussing the proof required to support a claim of wantonness

    [An appellate court] will not disturb the trial judge's finding of expert qualifications vel non, unless there is a clear abuse of this discretion.’ " Slay v. Keller Indus., Inc., 823 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Cobb v. State, 50 Ala.App. 707, 710, 282 So.2d 327, 329 (1973) ).1. Timeliness of Mazda's Objection

  6. Vesta Fire Ins. v. Milam Co. Constr

    901 So. 2d 84 (Ala. 2004)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that, "in determining whether the summary judgments for the defendants were proper on the ground of spoliation of the evidence, we consider whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in entering the summary judgments"

    "`[A]n expert witness' competence to testify is an inquiry substantially within the discretion of the trial judge. [An appellate court] will not disturb the trial judge's finding of expert qualifications vel non, unless there is a clear abuse of this discretion.' Cobb v. State, 50 Ala.App. 707, 710, 282 So.2d 327, 329 (1973), citing King v. State, 266 Ala. 232, 95 So.2d 816 (1957)."

  7. Slay v. Keller Industries, Inc.

    823 So. 2d 623 (Ala. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Excluding expert opinion regarding alternative design because "bald assertion" without supporting research, testing, or experiments, even if asserted by mechanical engineer generally qualified to speak expertly on such matters, cannot qualify as proper under either the "general-acceptance" standard enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), or the "scientifically reliable" standard of Daubert

    [An appellate court] will not disturb the trial judge's finding of expert qualifications vel non, unless there is a clear abuse of this discretion." Cobb v. State, 50 Ala. App. 707, 710, 282 So.2d 327, 329 (1973), citing King v. State, 266 Ala. 232, 95 So.2d 816 (1957). The Slays' expert witness, Dr. B.J. Stephens, is a mechanical engineer with degrees from Duke University. His deposition testimony made it clear that Dr. Stephens is not an accident reconstructionist and that, in fact, he did not reconstruct this accident.

  8. McClendon v. State

    387 So. 2d 112 (Miss. 1980)   Cited 17 times

    [I]t is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistence to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself. And Cobb v. State, 282 So.2d 327 (Ala. App. 1973), is persuasive to the same point of view. We think this assignment without merit.

  9. Holland v. State

    666 So. 2d 547 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that trial court committed reversible error in refusing to allow testimony from a defense witness where the witness was qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction

    356 So.2d at 149. See also Smoot, supra; Reynolds v. State, 346 So.2d 979, 982 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 346 So.2d 986 (Ala. 1977); Luckie v. State, 55 Ala. App. 642, 318 So.2d 337 (Civ.), cert. denied, 294 Ala. 764, 318 So.2d 341 (1975); Cobb v. State, 50 Ala. App. 707, 282 So.2d 327 (1973). However, the trial court's discretion is not unlimited.

  10. Colburn v. State

    494 So. 2d 120 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    This court, on appeal, will not disturb the trial judge's determination of expert qualifications unless there is a clear abuse of this discretion. Cobb v. State, 50 Ala. App. 707, 282 So.2d 327 (1973); Luckie v. State, 55 Ala. App. 642, 318 So.2d 337, cert. denied, 294 Ala. 764, 318 So.2d 341 (1975)."