Eddy v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Lane v. State

    327 So. 3d 691 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that "plain-error review is an inappropriate mechanism to decide issues of first impression"

    Lane argues, however, that the lack of similarity in circumstances affected only the weight of the experiment, not its admissibility. In support of that argument, Lane cites Eddy v. State, 352 So. 2d 1161 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977) -- a manslaughter case in which the defendant objected to testimony from a toxicologist who had performed tests with the firearm that killed the victim in order to determine how close the firearm would have to be to the victim before it would leave gunpowder residue on the victim's body. According to the defendant, the toxicologist's tests were inadmissible because, the defendant said, the tests "did not show โ€˜similarity in the essential conditions at the time of the occurrence and at the time of the experiment.โ€™ "

  2. Luong v. State (Ex parte State)

    199 So. 3d 139 (Ala. 2014)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that there was no presumption of prejudice from extensive media coverage that "mainly focused on the facts surrounding the offenses and the proceedings of the case"

    โ€™โ€œ โ€˜ โ€œSee also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).โ€

  3. McCray v. State

    88 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that police officer's testimony that the victim's wounds were consistent with a knife found at the crime scene and were defensive wounds was admissible lay-witness testimony

    If we have a case where the conditions are not identical, then the dissimilarity goes to the weight of the evidence of the experiment but not to its admissibility.โ€™ โ€œSee also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).โ€Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278โ€“79 (Ala.Crim.App.1979)

  4. McCray v. State

    No. CR-06-0360 (Ala. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2010)

    If we have a case where the conditions are not identical, then the dissimilarity goes to the weight of the evidence of the experiment but not to its admissibility.' "See also Eddy v. State, 352 So. 2d 1161 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977)." Ivey v. State, 369 So. 2d 1276, 1278-79 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979).

  5. Duke v. State

    889 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 72 times
    In Duke the only aggravating circumstance was that the murders were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel as compared to other capital murders.

    " "'See also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977).'

  6. Minor v. State

    780 So. 2d 707 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 54 times
    In Minor v. State, 780 So.2d 707, (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), we held that there was no Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), violation when the State failed to disclose the personnel files and other information regarding the alleged bias of State witnesses.

    ' "See also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977)." Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278-79 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979).

  7. Shoemaker v. State

    481 So. 2d 409 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    As a general rule, however, where the defendant injects a particular issue into evidence, the State is allowed to develop the matter in its cross-examination. Hinkle v. State, 50 Ala. App. 215, 278 So.2d 218 (1973); Williams v. State, 451 So.2d 411 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Huffman v. State, 360 So.2d 1038 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), aff'd, 360 So.2d 1045 (Ala. 1978); Green v. State, 352 So.2d 1149 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977); Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977). This rule applies even where the subsequent evidence is otherwise improper or illegal. Morgan v. State, 440 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).

  8. Shultz v. State

    480 So. 2d 73 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 35 times
    In Shultz, supra, the appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for manslaughter because, he maintained, the "State did not prove that the victim's death was 'due to a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation recognized by law.

    We hold that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude, by fair inference, that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Wiggins v. State, 354 So.2d 340 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978); Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977). Therefore, we will not disturb this conviction on appeal. Hurst v. State, 397 So.2d 203 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 397 So.2d 208 (Ala. 1981).

  9. Crittenden v. State

    476 So. 2d 626 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    In deciding this issue there are several controlling authorities. In Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), testimony was admitted that there had been fights between the defendant and the victim on previous occasions. The court, however, declined to allow the state to go into details concerning these fights.

  10. Hurst v. State

    397 So. 2d 203 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)   Cited 57 times

    Based on the foregoing facts, the jury verdict of first degree manslaughter is well supported. Wiggins v. State, 354 So.2d 340 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977); Ala. Code ยง 13-1-90 (1975). II.