Kabat v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. 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

    "Under this exception, a court may admit illegally obtained evidence if the evidence inevitably would have been discovered through independent, lawful means." Kabat v. State, 867 So.2d 1153, 1156 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (citations and quotations omitted). There are multiple ways to establish that evidence illegally seized is admissible under the inevitable-discovery exception.

  2. 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

    "Under this exception, a court may admit illegally obtained evidence if the evidence inevitably would have been discovered through independent, lawful means." Kabat v. State, 867 So. 2d 1153, 1156 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (citations and quotations omitted). There are multiple ways to establish that evidence illegally seized is admissible under the inevitable-discovery exception.

  3. Pritchett v. Farr

    592 F. App'x 816 (11th Cir. 2014)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    For instance, it may well be the case that the information from Pritchett's phone introduced at trial — which we assume (for present purposes only) was text messages or records of phone calls to the victim — would have been admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine because the police conceivably could have discovered that same evidence by looking at the victim's phone. See id.; cf. Kabat v. State, 867 So. 2d 1153, 1157 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (discussing "the inevitable-discovery exception" in Alabama criminal trials). VACATED AND REMANDED.

  4. Redfearn v. State

    204 So. 3d 922 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016)   1 Legal Analyses

    " Kabat v. State, 867 So.2d 1153, 1156 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).

  5. Grantham v. City of Tuscaloosa

    111 So. 3d 174 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that based on the lack of the articulable suspicion in the circumstances of the traffic stop, the defendant/passenger's reach over the console and refusal to exit the vehicle was merely an assertion of the right to privacy by withholding consent rather than furtive movements that might rise to the level of probable cause

    United States v. Cherry, 759 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037, 1043 (5th Cir.1980).”Kabat v. State, 867 So.2d 1153, 1156–57 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (footnote omitted). As the majority noted, the driver of the vehicle in which Grantham was a passenger gave Sgt. Hallman consent to search his vehicle.

  6. Sale v. State

    8 So. 3d 330 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)   Cited 42 times

    "Broadnax v. State, 825 So.2d 134, 203 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000), aff'd, 825 So.2d 233 (Ala. 2001)."Kabat v. State, 867 So.2d 1153, 1158 n. 5 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003). "A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, when his purpose is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct."

  7. Bentley v. State

    904 So. 2d 351 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    This Court affirmed Kabat's convictions and his sentences of life imprisonment without parole. Kabat v. State, 867 So.2d 1153 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003). Following Bentley's indictment on capital-murder charges, defense counsel entered a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" and filed pretrial motions raising concerns about Bentley's competency to waive his Miranda rights before he made inculpatory statements, his competency to stand trial, and his competency at the time of the crime.

  8. Yeomans v. State

    898 So. 2d 878 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 43 times
    Reviewing for plain error a claim that was not raised at trial

    This Court has consistently held that it will not reweigh the evidence presented at trial and that the credibility of evidence presented and the weight and probative force of that evidence are matters for the jury to determine. E.g., Kabat v. State, 867 So.2d 1153 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003). To establish a prima facie case of robbery-murder under § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975, the State must prove a robbery in the first degree or an attempt thereof, as defined by § 13A-8-41, and a murder as defined by § 13A-6-2(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975.