Estes v. State

13 Citing cases

  1. Bedsole v. State

    974 So. 2d 1034 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that "the determination of whether a prior bad act is too remote is made on a case-by-case basis and is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the judge's determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless the judge has abused his discretion"

    The State specifically argued at trial that L.D.'s testimony was admissible to show Bedsole's motive. In addressing the admissibility of collateral acts of sexual abuse in the trial of a defendant charged with rape and sexual abuse, this Court in Estes v. State, 776 So.2d 206 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), stated: "Ordinarily, a prior act of sexual abuse would be inadmissible under Rule 404(b).

  2. Williams v. State

    No. CR-2022-0543 (Ala. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2023)

    Proctor v. City of Prattville, 830 So.2d 38, 41-42 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). See also Garner v. State, 977 So.2d 533 (Ala.Crim.App.2007); Estes v. State, 776 So.2d 206 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

  3. 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"

    ’" Bedsole v. State, 974 So. 2d 1034, 1038–39 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), quoting Estes v. State, 776 So. 2d 206, 210–11 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)." E.L.Y. v. State, 266 So. 3d 1125, 1137 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018)

  4. E.L.Y. v. State

    266 So. 3d 1125 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    "Bedsole v. State, 974 So.2d 1034, 1038–39 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), quoting Estes v. State, 776 So.2d 206, 210–11 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by allowing the State to present evidence of E.L.Y.'s collateral acts of sexual abuse.

  5. Lucas v. State

    204 So. 3d 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times
    In Lucas, supra, this Court held that the State failed to prove that the defendant subjected the victim to sexual contact by forcible compulsion because when the sleeping victim woke up and pulled away from the defendant, the defendant did not touch the victim again.

    In Bedsole v. State, 974 So.2d 1034 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), this Court addressed the use of collateral acts to prove motive:"In addressing the admissibility of collateral acts of sexual abuse in the trial of a defendant charged with rape and sexual abuse, this Court in Estes v. State, 776 So.2d 206 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), stated:" ‘Ordinarily, a prior act of sexual abuse would be inadmissible under Rule 404(b).

  6. Brownlee v. State

    197 So. 3d 1024 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 4 times

    830 So.2d at 41–42. See also Ex parte Register, 680 So.2d 225, 228 (Ala.1994) (testimony regarding collateral acts of sexual abuse was admissible to establish motive, i.e., it “had some tendency to show that [the defendant] had a passion or propensity for unusual and abnormal sexual relations”); Garner v. State, 977 So.2d 533, 537 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (testimony regarding collateral acts of sexual abuse was admissible to show the defendant's motive, i.e., his “unnatural sexual desire for young girls”); Bedsole v. State, 974 So.2d 1034, 1039 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (testimony regarding collateral acts of sexual abuse was admissible to prove that the defendant was “ ‘motivated by an unnatural sexual desire for young girls' ” (quoting Estes v. State, 776 So.2d 206, 211 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ). In this case, the charged offenses and the collateral acts all involved young vulnerable girls of approximately the same age and were similar, albeit not identical, in nature.

  7. Windsor v. State

    110 So. 3d 876 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that “the exclusionary rule operates to exclude only evidence of other crimes that is offered as proof of the defendant's bad character”

    With regard to Rule 404(b) evidence used to prove motive, this Court has stated: “[I]t is permissible in every criminal case to show that there was an influence, an inducement, operating on the accused, which may have led or tempted him to commit the offense.” Estes v. State, 776 So.2d 206, 210–11 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). The record indicates that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed testimony regarding Windsor's actions at the Walgreens store because that evidence tended to prove both identity and motive.

  8. Pettibone v. State

    91 So. 3d 94 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the sentence enhancement under § 13A-6-67(b) applies when "a defendant’s first offense of second-degree sexual abuse … follows, within 12 months, the commission of any other sexual offense."

    ' “Estes v. State, 776 So.2d 206, 210–11 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).”Garner v. State, 977 So.2d 533, 537 (Ala.Crim.App.2007).

  9. Bryant v. State

    29 So. 3d 928 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)   Cited 10 times

    When an order purporting to modify a sentence is void for lack of jurisdiction, the original valid sentence must be reinstated. See, e.g., Ex parte Hitt, 778 So.2d 159, 162 (Ala. 2000) ("[T]he order purporting to modify Hitt's D.U.I., sentence is void. The original D.U.I., sentence must be reinstated."). See also Cruitt v. State, 893 So.2d 1236 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); State v. Trussell, 880 So.2d 1177 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Estes v. State, 776 So.2d 206 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999); and State v. Gagliardi 747 So.2d 366 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999) (all ordering reinstatement of original valid sentence when resentence was void for lack of jurisdiction). The 60-year sentence was clearly within the statutory range for a murder conviction in 1991.

  10. Garner v. State

    977 So. 2d 533 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that testimony regarding appellant's prior sexual abuse was relevant to show his "unnatural sexual desire for young girls"

    "' Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 123, 130 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997), quoting Bowden v. State, 538 So.2d 1226, 1237 (Ala. 1988)."Estes v. State, 776 So.2d 206, 210-11 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999). In this case, the prior acts were substantially similar to the acts that formed the basis for the instant offense.