Under Alabama law, all relevant and material evidence is admissible unless some exception to this rule bars its admission. See Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220, 221 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, No. 83-1119 (Ala. Aug. 31, 1984). Evidence is relevant if it has "any probative value, however slight," Primm v. State, 473 So.2d 1149, 1157 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985), or if it "throws, or tends to throw, any light upon the guilt or the innocence of the prisoner," Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018, 1026 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987) (quoting Underhill, Criminal Evidence § 154 (3d ed. 1923)), aff'd sub nom. Ex parte Nicks, 521 So.2d 1035 (Ala.)
We have also permitted the admission of a transcript where the tape recording was inaudible in places. Thornton v. State, 570 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.1990); Hill v. State, 516 So.2d 876 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). “ ‘ “Although the tape recording in the present case was neither unavailable nor inaudible, we see no reason why a different rule should apply.
Thornton v. State, 570 So. 2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Hill v. State, 516 So. 2d 876 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Dawkins v. State, 455 So. 2d 220 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). "'"Although the tape recording in the present case was neither unavailable nor inaudible, we see no reason why a different rule should apply.
A determination of the admissibility of evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. Mitchell v. State, 473 So.2d 591 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). It is axiomatic that evidence must be material and relevant before it can be considered by the trier of fact. Material evidence is "that quality of evidence which tends to influence the factfinder because of its logical connection or pertinency to the disputed issue." Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220, 221 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). Relevant evidence "has some tendency to make the existence of any fact or inference that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence."
"Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220, 222 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). Reversal can only be predicated upon an abuse of that discretion. Edwards v. State, 452 So.2d 487, 494 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), reversed on other grounds, 452 So.2d 503 (Ala. 1983); Ervin v. State, 399 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 399 So.2d 899 (Ala. 1981).
The nature, the variety, and the extent of the questions are left to the trial court…." Dawkins v. State, 455 So. 2d 220, 222 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984). "During voir dire, the State may mention the defendant’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination to the jurors and then inquire into the weight jurors will give to the defendant’s testimony if he decides to testify."
The nature, the variety, and the extent of the questions are left to the trial court...." Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220, 222 (Ala.Crim.App.1984).
A motion for continuance due to lack of time for adequate preparation is a matter entirely and exclusively within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed on appeal absent a plain and palpable showing of abuse." Reynolds v. State, 539 So.2d 428, 429 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988) (citing Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220, 221 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) ). The record indicates that the circuit court appointed new defense counsel on October 19, 2017.
‘Evidence which is relevant has some tendency to make the existence of any fact or inference that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’ Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220, 221 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).
We have also permitted the admission of a transcript where the tape recording was inaudible in places. Thornton v. State, 570 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.1990); Hill v. State, 516 So.2d 876 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Dawkins v. State, 455 So.2d 220 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). “ ‘Although the tape recording in the present case was neither unavailable nor inaudible, we see no reason why a different rule should apply.