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.
§

Deloach v. State

356 So. 2d 222 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Deloach v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Griswald

    743 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1984)   Cited 62 times
    Concluding jurors could not reasonably think midtrial publicity was credible after the trial judge expressly admonished them that it was false

    Moreover, evidence of prior bad acts of a criminal defendant not resulting in a conviction are generally inadmissible to prove the facts at issue in his trial. See Deloach v. State, 356 So.2d 222, 230 (Ala.Crim.App.) (arrest has no bearing on guilt of accused), cert. denied, 356 So.2d 230 (Ala. 1978); Rogers v. State, 54 Ala. App. 13, 304 So.2d 255 (1974) (accusation inadmissible to impeach). However, the "inadmissibility of the news report's contents is only one factor to be considered, and the crucial issue is the degree and pervasiveness of the prejudicial influence."

  2. Farris v. State

    432 So. 2d 538 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that § 13A–7–44, Ala. Code 1975, criminal possession of explosives, was not void for vagueness, even though the term ‘explosives’ was not specifically defined in the statute

    There is no argument with the principle that a weapon or other instrumentality used in the commission of a crime is admissible in evidence when properly identified. Deloach v. State, 356 So.2d 222, 230 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Deloach, 356 So.2d 230 (Ala. 1978). The general rule with regard to the admission into evidence of physical objects is stated in Washington v. State, 339 So.2d 611, 615 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 616 (Ala.

  3. Payne v. State

    419 So. 2d 286 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982)   Cited 10 times

    The trial court, therefore, did not err in submitting this issue to the jury. Cox v. State, 50 Ala. App. 339, 279 So.2d 143 (1973); Colston v. State, 57 Ala. App. 4, 325 So.2d 520, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 398, 325 So.2d 531 (1975); Deloach v. State, 356 So.2d 222 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 356 So.2d 230 (Ala. 1978). II

  4. Bagony v. City of Birmingham

    371 So. 2d 80 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 19 times
    In Bagony v. City of Birmingham, 371 So.2d 80 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), this court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of a concealed weapon without a license because the "State proved (1) that the defendant's address was in Birmingham, Alabama, (2) that he did not have a license to carry a pistol issued by the Sheriff of Jefferson County, and (3) that he was carrying a pistol (4) concealed on his person."

    Under these circumstances the officers were justified in stopping and frisking the defendant. Deloach v. State, 356 So.2d 222 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 356 So.2d 230 (Ala. 1978); Pruitt v. State, 337 So.2d 50 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); Kimbrough v. State, 352 So.2d 512 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 352 So.2d 516 (Ala. 1977). An investigatory detention may be based upon circumstances falling short of probable cause to arrest.