Dorch v. State

22 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. State

    329 So. 2d 621 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Did the Trial Court err in admitting testimony by a third party that the State's witness identified appellant's picture from a group of 40 pictures? Martin v. State, Fla., 129 So.2d 112; Aaron v. State, 273 Ala. 337, 139 So.2d 309; 29 Am.Jur.Evidence, Sec. 373. Did the Trial Court err in admitting into evidence a coat and Ball-peen hammer found approximately five days after the homicide which was never proved to be the property of the appellant and was found approximately three blocks from the scene of the homicide? Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287. Did the Trial Court err in admitting into evidence the results of tests run on the clothing of appellant which revealed the presence of blood and brain tissue when it was shown that two of the officers taking the appellant's clothing had been at the scene of the homicide, one collecting blood samples and particles of brain tissue and the other handling the victim's body and neither had washed or cleansed their hands before taking the clothing? Lackey v. State, 54 Ala. App. 693, 312 So.2d 96; 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, Sec. 774. Did the Trial Court err in admitting evidence of appellant's conviction for resisting arrest?

  2. McDade v. State

    49 Ala. App. 533 (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 6 times

    Whether evidence is admissible because of remoteness is largely within the trial court's discretion. Pitts v. State, 40 Ala. App. 702, 122 So.2d 542; Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287. Admission of hair samples into evidence is not testimonial or communicative evidence and does not violate defendant's right against self-incrimination. Hubbard v. State, 283 Ala. 183, 215 So.2d 261. Objection to evidence must be made when the evidence is offered. Walker v. State, 265 Ala. 233, 90 So.2d 221.

  3. Lane v. State

    169 So. 3d 1076 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that plain error did not result from the circuit court's failure to hold a suppression hearing when, among other things, "defense counsel never raised the issue of suppression at any time during the trial, nor did he object when the recording of Lane's confession was entered into evidence"

    “Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala.App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959).

  4. McGowan v. State

    990 So. 2d 931 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)   Cited 66 times
    Finding that the argument that ‘double-counting fail to narrow the class of cases eligible for the death penalty’ has ‘been repeatedly rejected’ and citing Lee v. State, 898 So. 2d 790, 871–72 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) ; Smith v. State, 838 So. 2d 413, 469 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1090, 123 S.Ct. 695, 154 L.Ed.2d 635 ; Broadnax v. State, 825 So. 2d 134, 208–09 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000), aff'd, 825 So. 2d 233 (Ala. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 964, 122 S.Ct. 2675, 153 L.Ed.2d 847 ; Ferguson v. State, 814 So. 2d 925, 956–57 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000), aff'd, 814 So. 2d 970 (Ala. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 907, 122 S.Ct. 1208, 152 L.Ed.2d 145 ; Taylor [v. State], 808 So. 2d at 1199 [ (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) ], aff'd, 808 So. 2d 1215 (Ala. 2001) ; Jackson v. State, 836 So. 2d 915, 958–59 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999), remanded on other grounds, 836 So. 2d 973 (Ala. 2001), aff'd, 836 So. 2d 979 (Ala. 2002) ; and Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1, 70–71 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999), aff'd, 758 So. 2d 81 (Ala. 1999)

    "'"Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala.App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). "'"While remoteness of time alone does not render the prior event inadmissible, Fields v. State, 362 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), the trial court 'is without discretion to admit a statement that is so remote as to time or circumstances that its relevance or materiality must rest in conjecture and speculation.'

  5. Drinkard v. State

    777 So. 2d 225 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)   Cited 22 times
    In Drinkard v. State, 777 So.2d 225, 255 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), we upheld a circuit court's refusal to order the State to disclose the criminal records of a police officer who had investigated a defendant's case.

    "`Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). "`While remoteness of time alone does not render the prior event inadmissible, Fields v. State, 362 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), the trial court "is without discretion to admit a statement that is so remote as to time or circumstances that its relevance or materiality must rest in conjecture and speculation.

  6. Wilson v. State

    690 So. 2d 449 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)   Cited 21 times
    In Wilson, a postconviction petition had been filed based on James White's, Wilson's codefendant, recantation of his trial testimony.

    "Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287 (1959)." Palmer v. State, 401 So.2d 266, 269 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 270 (Ala. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1280, 71 L.Ed.2d 463 (1982).

  7. Oryang v. State

    642 So. 2d 989 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)   Cited 42 times
    In Oryang v. State, 642 So.2d 989 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), the Defendant was convicted of attempted murder with respect to shootings that occurred in December 1991.

    " Smitherman v. State, 33 Ala. App. 316, 318-319, 33 So.2d 396 (1948). "Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). "While remoteness of time alone does not render the prior event inadmissible, Fields v. State, 362 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), the trial court 'is without discretion to admit a statement that is so remote as to time or circumstances that its relevance or materiality must rest in conjecture and speculation.' Roberson v. State, 339 So.2d 100, 104 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied 339, So.2d 104 (Ala. 1976).

  8. Smoot v. State

    520 So. 2d 182 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 33 times
    In Smoot v. State, 520 So.2d 182 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), we held that evidence of prior incidents of a manslaughter defendant's driving under the influence was relevant and admissible in a prosecution for recklessly causing the victim's death.

    Of course, it can be said with certainty that the tendered evidence must not be so remote in point of time as to be without causal connection or logical relation to the main fact.' "Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). See C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, Section 21.01(2) (3d ed. 1977)."

  9. Palmer v. State

    401 So. 2d 266 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)   Cited 49 times
    In Palmer v. State, 401 So.2d 266 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), this court held that "where ample evidence, even though conflicting, exists from which the trial judge could conclude that the appellant was not intoxicated to the extent of mania, the admission of a confession for a jury's consideration is not an abuse of discretion."

    " Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). See C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, Section 21.01 (2) (3rd ed. 1977).

  10. White v. State

    380 So. 2d 348 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 22 times
    In White v. State, 380 So.2d 348 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), this court held that evidence that a defendant, who was charged with the murder by shotgun of his wife, had cut his wife prior to the offense was admissible and not too remote, although the only evidence presented as to the date of the prior cutting was that it occurred "`a long time ago.'"

    Smitherman v. State, 33 Ala. App. 316, 318-319, 33 So.2d 396 (1948). Remoteness with respect to the admissibility of evidence is a relative idea and varies in its application according to the facts of each case. Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 476, 115 So.2d 287 (1959). While remoteness of time alone does not render the prior event inadmissible, Fields v. State, 362 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), the trial court "is without discretion to admit a statement that is so remote as to time or circumstances that its relevance or materiality must rest in conjecture and speculation". Roberson v. State, 339 So.2d 100, 104 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 104 (Ala. 1976).