Isbell v. State

25 Citing cases

  1. Hooper v. State

    585 So. 2d 133 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 4 times

    The extrajudicial statements to the counselor, social worker, and friends clearly were admissible only for impeachment purposes and not as substantive evidence. E.g., Ex parte Brown, 499 So.2d 787, 791 (Ala. 1986); Cloud v. Moon, 290 Ala. 33, 37, 273 So.2d 196, 199 (1973); Isbell v. State, 57 Ala. App. 444, 450, 329 So.2d 133, 138, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 407, 329 So.2d 140 (1976). The State does not contend otherwise.

  2. Thomas v. State

    389 So. 2d 552 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 5 times
    In Thomas, supra, the defendant could have been found guilty under evidence of either larceny or buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property.

    Clearly, the defendant's mere presence in the automobile would not constitute constructive possession of the stolen items, since this defendant neither owned or operated the vehicle. Isabell v. State, 57 Ala. App. 444, 452, 329 So.2d 133, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 407, 329 So.2d 140 (1976); Crowden and Askew v. State, 55 Ala. App. 325, 331, 315 So.2d 122, cert. denied, 294 Ala. 756, 315 So.2d 128 (1975). "In the absence of a showing that he [defendant] knew the guns to be in the car, knew them to be stolen and exercised some control over them, his presence in the car, standing alone, would not be sufficient for a conviction."

  3. Ex Parte Bell

    475 So. 2d 609 (Ala. 1985)   Cited 88 times
    Reversing Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that whether Hubbard was a participant or accomplice was a question of law not fact

    "Such corroborative testimony need not be sufficiently strong in itself to support a conviction. `[I]t is sufficient if it legitimately tends to connect the accused with the offense.' Isbell v. State, 57 Ala. App. 444, 329 So.2d 133, 139, (1976, per Bookout, J.)." (Emphasis in original.)

  4. Ex Parte Harris

    428 So. 2d 124 (Ala. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    In Harris, supra, that Alabama Supreme Court stated that the admission of the testimony of a prosecution witness concerning the existence of a prior inconsistent statement of another witness was not reversible error because `the admission of the prior inconsistent statement did not supply the jury any new information, but merely attacked [the witness'] credibility at trial, and was in no way damaging to this appellant.' (quoting from this court's opinion in Harris v. State, 428 So.2d 121 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981).

    The Court of Criminal Appeals sets forth this case's facts amply in its opinion, Harris v. Alabama, 428 So.2d 121 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), and no need exists to repeat those facts here. It is well settled in Alabama that if a party's own witness denies having made a prior inconsistent statement, testimony from another witness that he made the statement is not admissible. Isbell v. State, 57 Ala. App. 444, 329 So.2d 133, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 407, 329 So.2d 140 (1976); Randolph v. State, 331 So.2d 766 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 331 So.2d 771 (Ala. 1976); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 165.01 (7)(g) (3d ed. 1977). The appellant claims that the trial court's admission of Officer Gaut's testimony regarding Frank Sullivan's prior inconsistent statement constituted reversible error.

  5. Senn v. State

    344 So. 2d 192 (Ala. 1977)   Cited 28 times
    In Ex parte Senn, Ala., 344 So.2d 192, released by the Supreme Court on February 25, 1977, that court had occasion to restate the rule governing the sufficiency of corroborative testimony of an accomplice to sustain a conviction.

    "[I]t is sufficient if it legitimately tends to connect the accused with the offense." Isbell v. State, 57 Ala. App. 444, 329 So.2d 133, 139, (1976, per Bookout, J.). Analyzing the testimony in the case at bar we have the following corroborative evidence:

  6. Isbell v. State

    329 So. 2d 140 (Ala. 1976)

    FAULKNER, Justice. Petition of the State by its Atty. Gen. for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Isbell v. State, 57 Ala. App. 444, 329 So.2d 133. WRIT DENIED.

  7. S.E. v. State

    328 So. 3d 904 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020)

    "[I]t is sufficient if it legitimately tends to connect the accused with the offense." Isbell v. State, 57 Ala. App. 444, 329 So. 2d 133, 139 (1976, per Bookout, J.).’ Senn v. State, 344 So. 2d 192, 193 (Ala. 1977). ‘The corroboration which is sufficient to support the accomplices' testimony must be of some fact tending to prove the guilt of the defendant.’

  8. J.C.C. v. State

    4 So. 3d 1192 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)

    In this case, the appellant was not the sole occupant of the vehicle and there was no evidence that the appellant exercised any degree of power or dominion over the automobile. Compare Isbell v. State, 57 Ala.App. 444, 329 So.2d 133, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 407, 329 So.2d 140 (1976). In Isbell, the accused was a passenger in a car that belonged to a third party and that contained recently stolen guns.

  9. B.B. v. State

    778 So. 2d 258 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)   Cited 5 times
    In B.B. v. State, 778 So.2d 258 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000), the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed B.B.'s adjudication of delinquency based on a charge of receiving stolen property after B.B. was arrested for being a passenger in a stolen car.

    In this case, the appellant was not the sole occupant of the vehicle and there was no evidence that the appellant exercised any degree of power or dominion over the automobile. Compare Isbell v. State, 57 Ala. App. 444, 329 So.2d 133, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 407, 329 So.2d 140 (1976). In Isbell, the accused was a passenger in a car that belonged to a third party and that contained recently stolen guns.

  10. J.W.B. v. State

    651 So. 2d 73 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)   Cited 10 times
    Applying " ‘[t]he general standard by which we review the evidence’ " to a juvenile proceeding (quoting Robinette v. State, 531 So. 2d 682, 687 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) )

    In this case, the appellant was not the sole occupant of the vehicle and there was no evidence that the appellant exercised any degree of power or dominion over the automobile. Compare Isbell v. State, 57 Ala. App. 444, 329 So.2d 133, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 407, 329 So.2d 140 (1976). In Isbell, the accused was a passenger in a car that belonged to a third party and that contained recently stolen guns.