Holland v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Landry v. State

    321 So. 2d 759 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 12 times

    Possession by the accused of the murder weapon a short time after a killing tends to connect the accused with the killing. Holland v. State, 49 Ala. App. 104, 268 So.2d 883. Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle, which is capable of being moved, contains evidence of a crime, law enforcement officers may search the vehicle without a warrant. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 96 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419.

  2. Smith v. State

    310 So. 2d 484 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    Acoff v. State, 50 Ala. App. 206, 278 So.2d 210. No objection can be taken to a venire of jurors except for fraud in the drawing and summoning of jurors. Code of Alabama 1940 (as revised), Title 30 § 46; Holland v. State, 49 Ala. App. 104, 268 So.2d 883 (1972); Junior v. State, 47 Ala. App. 518, 257 So.2d 844, cert. denied, 288 Ala. 744, 257 So.2d 852 (1972). The question of whether a particular witness will be allowed to testify as an expert is discretionary with the trial court, whose discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except for gross abuse. Haggler v. Gilliland, 292 Ala. 262, 292 So.2d 647 (1974); Cobb v. State, 50 Ala. App. 707, 282 So.2d 327 (1973).

  3. Tomlin v. State

    909 So. 2d 213 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the challenged jurors were stricken for nondiscriminatory reasons, including a stated inability to follow the law

    44-45, 318 So.2d at 340. See also Dobbins v. State, 274 Ala. 524, 149 So.2d 814 (1963) (a state toxicologist was correctly allowed to testify that the cause of the victim's death was bullet wounds to the head); Johnson v. State, 272 Ala. 633, 133 So.2d 53 (1961) (an assistant state toxicologist was properly allowed to testify that the victim died as a result of blunt-force injuries); Smarr v. State, 260 Ala. 30, 68 So.2d 6 (1953) (a state toxicologist was properly allowed to testify that one of the victims died as a result of a fractured skull); Collins v. State, 250 Ala. 58, 33 So.2d 18 (1947) (a toxicologist was properly allowed to testify that the victim died of a bullet wound to skull); Wilson v. State, 243 Ala. 1, 8 So.2d 422 (1942) (a toxicologist was properly allowed to testify that the victim was poisoned); Hall v. State, 49 Ala.App. 695, 275 So.2d 374 (1973) (a toxicologist was properly allowed to testify that the victim's cause of death was blunt-force injuries to the head); Holland v. State, 49 Ala.App. 104, 268 So.2d 883 (1972) (a toxicologist was properly allowed to testify that the victim died of gunshot wounds); Richardson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 207, 98 So.2d 59 (1957), cert. denied, 266 Ala. 699, 98 So.2d 65 (1957) (a toxicologist was properly allowed to testify that the victim died from a bullet wound to the chest). Here, Small was properly qualified to testify that in his opinion the victims died of multiple gunshot wounds.

  4. Janezic v. State

    723 So. 2d 696 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times
    In Janezic v State, 723 So.2d 696 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996), this court, in a 3-2 decision, affirmed a conviction of a lower court; our judgment was later reversed by the Alabama Supreme Court. Ex parte Janezic, 723 So.2d 725 (Ala. 1997).

    As was noted in Beverett v. State, 24 Ala. App. 470, 471, 136 So. 843 (1931), 'The testimony of several witnesses, to the effect that immediately after inflicting the mortal knife blows upon deceased that defendant ran from the place of killing, cannot be construed as attempting to show flight as the law contemplates.' But see Holland v. State, 49 Ala. App. 104, 106, 268 So.2d 883 (1972) (evidence that immediately after shooting, defendant and his companion were 'intercepted' at or near a cemetery some two or three miles from the place of the shooting and that the automobile driven by the defendant had collided with another automobile in a funeral procession was admissible as 'tend[ing] to show flight on the part of the appellant from the scene of the difficulty'). "'However, under certain circumstances, the fact that the accused made a hurried departure from the scene of the crime immediately after the clime was committed may constitute evidence of flight.'

  5. Johnson v. State

    553 So. 2d 645 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    As was noted in Beverett v. State, 24 Ala. App. 470, 471, 136 So. 843 (1931), "The testimony of several witnesses, to the effect that immediately after inflicting the mortal knife blows upon deceased that defendant ran from the place of killing, cannot be construed as attempting to show flight as the law contemplates." But, see Holland v. State, 49 Ala. App. 104, 106, 268 So.2d 883 (1972) (evidence that immediately after shooting, defendant and his companion were "intercepted" at or near a cemetery some two or three miles from the place of the shooting and that the automobile driven by the defendant had collided with another automobile in a funeral procession was admissible as "tend[ing] to show flight on the part of the appellant from the scene of the difficulty"). "However, under certain circumstances, the fact that the accused made a hurried departure from the scene of the crime immediately after the crime was committed may constitute evidence of flight."

  6. Hall v. State

    275 So. 2d 374 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 6 times

    The declarations of the appellant and co-defendant were of probative value bearing on their connection with the difficulty on the dirt road which had occurred only a short time before and tended to connect them with the wounds upon the body of Brown. The declarations were therefore admissible against the appellant. Williams, supra; Harris, supra; Johnson, supra; Willingham v. State, 261 Ala. 454, 74 So.2d 241; Holland v. State, 49 Ala. App. 104, 268 So.2d 883. No error resulted to the appellant. The appellant next complains of error when the trial court permitted witness Roy Lee, a Deputy Sheriff, to state to the jury a remark he overheard co-defendant Laster make to Horace Price. On Sunday, December 6, 1970, Price and Laster were sitting in the rear seat of the patrol car in custody of Sheriff Daniels and Lee. They were driving to the scene of the difficulty between Price and Brown. The two suspects engaged in conversation concerning the difficulty, which conversation could be overheard by the officers in the front seat of the patrol car.