Holt v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Gurganus v. State

    520 So. 2d 170 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 27 times
    In Gurganus v. State, 520 So.2d 170 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), the defense was one of alibi and the State did not present any reasonable theory to support a charge on a lesser included offense.

    Therefore, the testimony by McGraw would have been cumulative. "The trial court here allowed the appellant considerable latitude to explain his whereabouts during the time interval involved, and we are not persuaded that reversible error is shown here." Holt v. State, 343 So.2d 582, 586 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977). V

  2. Brown v. State

    392 So. 2d 1248 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 84 times
    In Brown, the court reversed the judgment, based on the (preserved) trial court's error in admitting into evidence the appellant's fingerprint card.

    The trial court is not required to charge the jury on a lesser included offense when the evidence adduced at trial points either to the commission of the offense charged in the indictment or to the accused's innocence. Chavers v. State, Ala., 361 So.2d 1106 (1978); Cooper v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 364 So.2d 382, cert. denied, Ala., 364 So.2d 388 (1978); Holt v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 343 So.2d 582 (1977); Harvest v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 1369 (1977); and cases cited therein. See also; Lee, supra, (holding that the burden of proving misdemeanor possession is for the defendant as it is a defensive matter under an indictment charging a felony offense under now § 20-2-70 (a) Code of Alabama 1975).

  3. Harris v. State

    347 So. 2d 1363 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 38 times

    There is no doubt and we have so held that questions of this type are hearsay and are prejudicial. Madison v. State, 55 Ala. App. 634, 318 So.2d 329, cert. denied, 294 Ala. 764, 318 So.2d 337 (1975). Holt v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 347 So.2d 536; writ of certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court granted February 9, 1977, Ala.Cr.App., 343 So.2d 582. The question in this case then becomes whether there was a proper presentation and reservation in the lower court of error and the grounds of review. Title 15, § 389, Code of Alabama 1940, requires that this court must "consider all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exception (now transcript of the evidence) and must render such judgment as the law demands".