Dawkins v. State

56 Citing cases

  1. Thigpen v. Thigpen

    926 F.2d 1003 (11th Cir. 1991)   Cited 33 times
    Holding extraneous offense evidence admissible where relevant to show the defendant's and a co-defendant's relative motives

    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.)

  2. Revis v. State

    101 So. 3d 247 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that “evidence tending to establish motive is always admissible”

    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.

  3. Revis v. State

    No. CR-06-0454 (Ala. Crim. App. Jan. 13, 2011)

    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.

  4. Sheridan v. State

    591 So. 2d 129 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 45 times
    Stating that while a witness cannot testify as to facts not within his knowledge, he can testify to beliefs, thoughts, or impressions that were based in what he had an opportunity to observe

    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."

  5. Jennings v. State

    513 So. 2d 91 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 46 times
    In Jennings v. State, 513 So.2d 91 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), the trial court would not permit two witnesses for the defense to testify.

    "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).

  6. Nelson v. State

    377 So. 3d 565 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022)

    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."

  7. Nelson v. State

    No. CR-20-0645 (Ala. Crim. App. Jul. 8, 2022)

    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).

  8. Jarmon v. State

    284 So. 3d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019)

    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.

  9. McMillan v. State

    139 So. 3d 184 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 29 times
    Stating that, “[d]espite [the defendant's] reference to certain unflattering comments made on blogs on certain Web sites, this alone did not require a change of venue”

    ‘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).

  10. Gobble v. State

    104 So. 3d 920 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that trial court's statement that "[t]he jury's verdict establishes the existence of this aggravating circumstance in an unanimous vote and the evidence supports the verdict" was insufficient to comply with § 13A-5-47(d)

    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.