Lacy v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Phillips v. State

    527 So. 2d 154 (Ala. 1988)   Cited 81 times

    See, e.g., Ringer v. State, 489 So.2d 646 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Lacy v. State, 484 So.2d 1192 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Crittenden v. State, 414 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Williams v. State, 383 So.2d 547 (Ala.Crim.App. 1979), affirmed, Ex parte Williams, 383 So.2d 564 (Ala. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 995 (1980). By testifying about his prior convictions for theft of property, respondent opened the door for the prosecution to cross-examine him about these convictions.

  2. Lee v. State

    898 So. 2d 790 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)   Cited 81 times
    Upholding an instruction that informed the jury that "a doubt which would justify an acquittal must be an actual doubt, and not a mere guess or surmise or whim, and it's not a forced doubt"

    There are numerous decisions which hold that a defendant cannot predicate error upon admission of testimony that is elicited by defense counsel and is responsive to defense questions. See, e.g., Ringer v. State, 489 So.2d 646 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Lacy v. State, 484 So.2d 1192 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Crittenden v. State, 414 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Williams v. State, 383 So.2d 547 (Ala.Crim.App. 1979), affirmed, Ex parte Williams, 383 So.2d 564 (Ala. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 995, 101 S.Ct. 534, 66 L.Ed.2d 293 (1980)."

  3. Lee v. State

    No. CR-00-0084 (Ala. Crim. App. Jun. 27, 2003)   3 Legal Analyses

    There are numerous decisions which hold that a defendant cannot predicate error upon admission of testimony that is elicited by defense counsel and is responsive to defense questions. See, e.g., Ringer v. State, 489 So.2d 646 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Lacy v. State, 484 So.2d 1192 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Crittenden v. State, 414 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Williams v. State, 383 So.2d 547 (Ala.Crim.App. 1979), affirmed, Ex parte Williams, 383 So.2d 564 (Ala. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 995 (1980)."

  4. Minor v. State

    780 So. 2d 707 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 54 times
    In Minor v. State, 780 So.2d 707, (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), we held that there was no Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), violation when the State failed to disclose the personnel files and other information regarding the alleged bias of State witnesses.

    There are numerous decisions which hold that a defendant cannot predicate error upon admission of testimony that is elicited by defense counsel and is responsive to defense questions. See, e.g., Ringer v. State, 489 So.2d 646 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Lacy v. State, 484 So.2d 1192 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Crittenden v. State, 414 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Williams v. State, 383 So.2d 547 (Ala.Crim.App. 1979), affirmed, Ex parte Williams, 383 So.2d 564 (Ala. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 995 (1980). By testifying about his prior convictions . . ., [the defendant] opened the door for the prosecution to cross-examine him about these convictions.

  5. Kolmetz v. State

    600 So. 2d 389 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 14 times

    This court may review only rulings of the trial court that are adverse to the appellant. Lacy v. State, 484 So.2d 1192 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). Although the prosecutor suggested at the hearing on motion for new trial that Kolmetz be retried on the initial charges, no action was taken in this respect by the trial court.

  6. McGahee v. State

    554 So. 2d 454 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 51 times
    In McGahee, the accused argued, in prosecution for murder during the course of sexual abuse in the first degree, that his intent was to "punish or demean" and not to gratify his sexual desire. 554 So.2d at 465.

    "[E]rror cannot be predicated upon admission of testimony which was elicited by defense counsel and was responsive to defense questions." Lacy v. State, 484 So.2d 1192, 1195 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986). See also Crawford v. State, 485 So.2d 391 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Timmons v. State, 487 So.2d 975 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied (Ala. 1986).

  7. Sanders v. City of Birmingham

    542 So. 2d 325 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the trial court correctly characterized police officers as experts on the question of the defendant's intoxication

    "[E]rror cannot be predicated upon admission of testimony which was elicited by defense counsel and was responsive to defense questions." Lacy v. State, 484 So.2d 1192, 1195 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986) (citations omitted). Kennedy's remark was in response to defense counsel's questions concerning how Kennedy remembered this particular appellant.

  8. Lewis v. State

    488 So. 2d 1362 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    "It is well settled that all grounds of objection not specified are waived, and that the trial court will not be placed in error on grounds not raised at trial." Reeves v. State, 456 So.2d 1156, 1160 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Lacy v. State, 484 So.2d 1192 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); Saffold v. State, 485 So.2d 806 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). In McDonald v. State, 448 So.2d 460, 463 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), defense counsel argued at the trial level that the testimony objected to "does not go to the truth of any matter asserted.