Hayes v. State

22 Citing cases

  1. Powell v. State

    100 So. 2d 38 (Ala. Crim. App. 1957)   Cited 15 times

    Montgomery W. Plank-Road Co. v. Webb, 27 Ala. 618; Peterson v. State, 63 Ala. 113; Ryan v. Beard's Heirs, 74 Ala. 306. Where prosecution offers no evidence of flight of defendant, it is not competent for defense to show he voluntarily surrendered. Walker v. State, 139 Ala. 56, 35 So. 1011; Starke v. State, 31 Ala. App. 322, 16 So.2d 426; Hayes v. State, 33 Ala. App. 364, 33 So.2d 744. CATES, Judge.

  2. Patty v. State

    45 So. 2d 333 (Ala. Crim. App. 1950)   Cited 4 times

    On this appeal we are of course bound by the record as certified by the clerk of the court. Allegations of facts in counsel's brief disputing the record cannot be considered by us. Hayes v. State, Ala.App., 33 So.2d 744; Thompson v. State, 32 Ala. App. 402, 27 So.2d 55, certiorari denied 248 Ala. 270, 27 So.2d 59. 33 Ala. App. 364.

  3. Weathington v. City of Birmingham

    293 Ala. 652 (Ala. 1975)   Cited 3 times

    Thompson v. State, 32 Ala. App. 402, 27 So.2d 55. Where appeal was upon the record, other documents dehors the record and cannot be considered on appeal. Linton v. State, 35 Ala. App. 89, 43 So.2d 847; Hayes v. State, 33 Ala. App. 364, 33 So.2d 744; Mathews v. State, 21 Ala.App . 231, 106 So. 889; Walker v. State, 223 Ala. 294, 135 So. 438. The Supreme Court can receive no evidence dehors the record.

  4. Coats v. State

    45 So. 2d 35 (Ala. 1950)   Cited 56 times

    The evidence was ample to sustain the verdict and the motion for new trial was properly overruled. Farley v. State, 34 Ala. App. 54, 37 So.2d 434; Hayes v. State, 33 Ala. App. 364, 33 So.2d 744. The court's action in sustaining defendant's objection to improper answers of witness, and instruction to the jury excluding it, removed any prejudicial effect. Burkett v. State, 215 Ala. 453, 111 So. 34, 6 Ala.Dig.Cr. Law 730 (1).

  5. Musgrove v. State

    519 So. 2d 565 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 68 times
    In Musgrove v. State, 519 So.2d 565 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 519 So.2d 586 (Ala. 1986), this Court rejected a vagueness challenge to our first-degree-kidnapping statute, despite the fact that the statute did not define the term "terrorism."

    The jury was certainly informed that a .22 pistol was brandished as a means of effectuating the robbery."); Walton v. State, 54 Ala. App. 317, 320-21, 307 So.2d 713 (1975) (shotguns admitted without prejudice even though there was no positive evidence who actually owned the guns where inference available that they were used by the defendant); Dickerson v. State, 43 Ala. App. 694, 698, 200 So.2d 487, cert. denied, 281 Ala. 718, 200 So.2d 492, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 994, 88 S.Ct. 496, 19 L.Ed.2d 489 (1967) (The victim "identified defendant as the man who robbed him at gun point. It is immaterial whether this was the exact gun used in the robbery."); Hayes v. State, 33 Ala. App. 364, 366-67, 33 So.2d 744 (1948) ("It is not disputed in the evidence that the defendant shot Mr. Bradford five times with a pistol. * * * [I]n view of the undisputed evidence in the case, we cannot see how the introduction of this pistol could have in any way harmed the appellant.").

  6. Bell v. State

    461 So. 2d 855 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)   Cited 11 times

    The presumption in favor of the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the trial court and the ruling of the trial court on the motion for new trial is not a conclusive presumption. It may be overcome, and it is our duty to reverse if we are convinced that the verdict is so contrary to the great weight of the testimony that such verdict is palpably wrong or unjust. Colvin v. State, 39 Ala. App. 355, 102 So.2d 911 (1958), cert. denied, 267 Ala. 694, 102 So.2d 913; Fort v. State, 37 Ala. App. 91, 64 So.2d 604 (1953), cert. denied, 258 Ala. 637, 64 So.2d 606; Hayes v. State, 33 Ala. App. 364, 33 So.2d 744 (1948). We fully realize the vantage of the trial judge and the jury to determine from the evidence whether defendant was guilty of the crime expressly charged by reason of their both seeing and hearing the witnesses as they testified. Nevertheless, in this particular case, it so happens that the record, including the court reporters transcript of the proceedings and an extraordinarily large number of photographs and other exhibits, affords appellate judges an opportunity better than usual to determine whether the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

  7. Sparks v. State

    450 So. 2d 188 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)   Cited 29 times

    In fact, no argument or evidence was presented in support of any ground of the motion for new trial which was denied by operation of law as authorized by A.R.Crim.P.Temp. 13 (d). Where no evidence is taken in support of a motion for new trial, a reviewing court can consider only the record of the trial in chief. Hayes v. State, 33 Ala. App. 364, 370, 33 So.2d 744 (1948). In arguing his request for mistrial, defense counsel stated:

  8. Oglen v. State

    440 So. 2d 1172 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 28 times

    Impatience with excessive delay by counsel is a natural and understandable reaction." Fletcher v. State, 291 Ala. 67, 69, 277 So.2d 882 (1973); Hayes v. State, 33 Ala. App. 364, 369, 33 So.2d 744 (1948). The defendant argues that he was especially prejudiced by the trial judge's conduct on three separate occasions.

  9. Hambright v. State

    432 So. 2d 13 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 3 times
    In Hambright v. State, 432 So.2d 13, 14 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), this court held that, even if photographs of a knife should not have been admitted at trial because the knife depicted had not been sufficiently identified as the murder weapon, the error in the admission of the photographs was harmless.

    In the following cases, harmless error was found in the admission of a weapon where there was no positive identification that the weapon was used in the particular crime. Carroll v. State, 370 So.2d 749, 759 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 761 (Ala. 1979); Mack v. State, 337 So.2d 74, 76 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); Walton v. State, 54 Ala. App. 317, 321, 307 So.2d 713 (1975); Gautney v. State, 46 Ala. App. 102, 104, 238 So.2d 900 (1970); Dickerson v. State, 43 Ala. App. 694, 698, 200 So.2d 487 (1967); Hayes v. State, 33 Ala. App. 364, 367, 33 So.2d 744 (1948). II

  10. Rowser v. State

    346 So. 2d 533 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 8 times

    However, where the state does not seek to show flight on the part of the defendant, it is incompetent for the defense to show that the accused voluntarily surrendered or failed to flee when the opportunity was offered. McAllister v. State, 30 Ala. App. 366, 6 So.2d 32 (1942); Coleman v. State, 87 Ala. 14, 6 So. 290 (1888); Pate v. State, 94 Ala. 14, 10 So. 665 (1891); Vaughn v. State, 130 Ala. 18, 30 So. 669 (1901); Walker v. State, 139 Ala. 56, 35 So. 1011 (1904); Hendley v. State, 200 Ala. 546, 76 So. 904 (1917); Hurst v. State, 1 Ala. App. 235, 56 So. 18 (1911); Starke v. State, 31 Ala. App. 322, 16 So.2d 426 (1944); Hayes v. State, 33 Ala. App. 364, 33 So.2d 744 (1948). Where there is no evidence of flight offered by the state, the refusal of the accused to flee is not admissible for him as tending to establish his innocence.