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.
§

Gissendanner v. State

949 So. 2d 956 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Gissendanner v. State

41 Citing cases

  1. Shanklin v. State

    No. CR-11-1441 (Ala. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2015)

    "Gissendanner v. State, 949 So. 2d 956, 961-62 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).

  2. Shanklin v. State

    187 So. 3d 734 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 30 times
    Noting that, in capital-murder cases, claims in briefs not in compliance with Rule 28 are reviewed for plain error

    " Gissendanner v. State, 949 So.2d 956, 961–62 (Ala.Crim.App.2006).

  3. Wilson v. State

    142 So. 3d 732 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that it was not improper for the prosecutor to swing a baseball bat during closing arguments in a case where the evidence indicated that the defendant had attacked the victim with a baseball bat

    However, statements relating to the effect of the crime on the victim “are admissible during the guilt phase of a criminal trial ... if the statements are relevant to a material issue of the guilt phase.” Ex parte Crymes, 630 So.2d 125, 126 (Ala.1993) (emphasis in original); see also Gissendanner v. State, 949 So.2d 956, 965 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (holding that victim-impact type evidence is admissible in the guilt phase if it is relevant to guilt-phase issues). Rule 401, Ala. R. Evid., provides that “ ‘[r]elevant evidence’ [is any] evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

  4. State v. Gissendanner

    288 So. 3d 923 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    Gissendanner's convictions and sentence of death were affirmed on direct appeal. Gissendanner v. State, 949 So. 2d 956 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), cert. denied, 949 So. 2d 956 (Ala. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1222, 127 S.Ct. 1283, 167 L.Ed.2d 103 (2007). This Court issued the certificate of judgment for Gissendanner's direct appeal on August 25, 2006.

  5. Ex parte Gissendanner

    288 So. 3d 1011 (Ala. 2019)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that, when the same judge presides over both the trial and Rule 32 proceedings, this Court must give that judge's finding as to prejudice "considerable weight"

    His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Gissendanner v. State, 949 So.2d 956 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).

  6. Belcher v. State

    341 So. 3d 237 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020)   Cited 10 times

    . See also Smith v. State, 246 So. 3d 1086, 1111 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) ("Although unpleasant, the photographs and testimony were not unduly gruesome or unfairly prejudicial."); Gissendanner v. State, 949 So. 2d 956, 972 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) ("[W]e cannot find that the trial court abused its substantial discretion when it admitted the [14-minute] videotape. Although parts of the videotape showing [the victim's] body were indeed gruesome, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that the videotape was not unfairly prejudicial."); Loggins v. State, 771 So. 2d 1070, 1077 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) ("[E]vidence of the mutilation and the photographs of the body were clearly material and relevant to show where and in what condition [the victim's] body was found.").

  7. Townes v. State

    253 So. 3d 447 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 19 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the defendant’s statement was voluntary because the statement "was not the product of any threats, inducements, or promises" and because the defendant "was fairly calm and did not appear to be under undue stress"

    Turner, 924 So.2d at 769–70. See alsoGissendanner v. State, 949 So.2d 956, 965 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (holding that evidence relating to the discovery of the victim's body did not constitute victim-impact evidence).

  8. State v. Gissendanner

    No. CR-09-0998 (Ala. Crim. App. Dec. 19, 2014)

    Gissendanner's convictions and sentence of death were affirmed on direct appeal. Gissendanner v. State, 949 So. 2d 956 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), cert. denied, 949 So. 2d 956 (Ala. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1222 (2007). This Court issued the certificate of judgment for Gissendanner's direct appeal on August 25, 2006.

  9. Kelley v. State

    246 So. 3d 1032 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that the State's improper comments were harmless when the comment related to a fact that the jury would have inferred from properly admitted evidence

    As such, no error resulted from the admission of the photographs and testimony relating to postmortem animal and insect activity. SeeGissendanner v. State , 949 So.2d 956, 969–72 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to admit a 14–minute video depicting the victims decomposing body). V.

  10. Kelley v. State

    No. CR-10-0642 (Ala. Crim. App. Mar. 14, 2014)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that neither the Supreme Court's opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, nor its subsequent holding in Ring v. Arizona, required that an accused be provided with advance notice of all aggravating circumstances upon which the prosecutor intends to rely

    As such, no error resulted from the admission of the photographs and testimony relating to postmortem animal and insect activity. See Gissendanner v.State, 949 So. 2d 956, 969-72 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to admit a 14-minute video depicting the victims decomposing body). V.