Leonard v. State

44 Citing cases

  1. Wright v. Hopper

    169 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 916 times
    Holding that testimony is not "material" under Brady if it does not exculpate the defendant or impeach the witnesses who testified against him at trial

    In Alabama, a prosecutor or defense attorney cannot use evidence of drug use to impeach a witness unless it is shown that the drugs affect the reliability of the witness's testimony. See Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1147 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Moreover, "[t]he credibility of a witness may be impeached by proving mental derangement or insanity but only if such mental incapacity exists at the time the witness takes the stand to testify or at the time he observed the facts to which he has testified on direct."

  2. Bester v. State

    381 So. 3d 1155 (Ala. Crim. App. 2023)

    Because it is being raised for the first time on appeal, there is no adverse ruling for this court to review. Leonard v. State, 551 So. 2d 1143, 1146 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 551 So.2d 1143 [(Ala. 1989)]."). A review of the cases cited above reflects that this Court has reviewed a ruling on a motion to consolidate when a defendant had made either a specific objection to the motion or moved that the cases be severed pursuant to Rule 13.4, Ala. R. Crim. P.

  3. Bester v. State

    No. CR-21-0334 (Ala. Crim. App. Oct. 7, 2022)

    Because it is being raised for the first time on appeal, there is no adverse ruling for this court to review. Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1146 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 551 So.2d 1143 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991)."). A review of the cases cited above reflects that this Court has reviewed a ruling on a motion to consolidate when a defendant had made either a specific objection to the motion or moved that the cases be severed pursuant to Rule 13.4, Ala. R. Crim. P.

  4. Cole v. State

    721 So. 2d 255 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that a motion to dismiss containing "general and nonspecific grounds" and "a general conclusory statement" challenging the constitutionality of a criminal statute was insufficient to support appellate review because "`[t]he trial court should not be made to cast about for reasons why a statute might be unconstitutional'" (quoting Perry v. State, 568 So.2d 339, 340 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990))

    Because it is being raised for the first time on appeal, there is no adverse ruling for this court to review. Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1146 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 551 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). IV.

  5. Hardeman v. State

    651 So. 2d 59 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)   Cited 19 times
    Noting that the 48-hour rule set forth in Rule 4.3 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure "originated in County of Riverside v. McLaughlin"

    [C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 426.01(11) (4th ed. 1991)]." Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1151-52 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). Furthermore, the objection that was interposed was untimely.

  6. Robinson v. State

    574 So. 2d 910 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony of coroner who had 15 years' experience performing blood spatter analysis

    "A defendant is bound by the grounds of objection raised at trial and cannot change them on appeal." Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1151 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). Moreover, "[t]he statement of specific grounds of objection waives all grounds not specified and the trial court will not be put in error on grounds not assigned at trial."

  7. Lynch v. Thomas

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-774-WHA (M.D. Ala. Sep. 8, 2014)

    A defendant is bound by the grounds of objection raised at trial and cannot change them on appeal." Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1151 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Therefore, Lynch did not preserve[] these claims, and they are not properly before this Court for review.

  8. Ex Parte Bird

    594 So. 2d 676 (Ala. 1991)   Cited 231 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676 (Ala. 1991), for example, the prosecution attempted to justify the use of "17 of [its] 20 peremptory strikes to eliminate 17 of the 19 black veniremembers," id. at 678, on grounds that, as to two of the challenged veniremembers, this Court rejected as constitutionally deficient. Specifically, the Court held invalid the prosecution's assertions that one veniremember lived in a high crime area, id. at 682-83, and that a second veniremember was "underemployed."

    As the Court of Criminal Appeals and the defendants point out, this issue has reached the appellate level in a number of cases from Montgomery County. See Parker v. State, 568 So.2d 335 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990); Wagner v. State, 555 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989); Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989); Powell v. State, 548 So.2d 590 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988); Williams v. State, 530 So.2d 881 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988); Williams v. State, 548 So.2d 501 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988); and Acres v. State, 548 So.2d 459 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987). Four of these cases were reversed because of a violation of Batson and Branch.

  9. Barela v. State

    787 P.2d 82 (Wyo. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    A random selection of recent national cases should highlight the need for proper assertion of defense counsel responsibility by objecting to claimed improprieties by the prosecuting attorney. See Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), inadequate objection to preserve error alleged in final objection about production of tangible items as possible evidence and Minnick v. State, 551 So.2d 77 (Miss. 1988), contended improper argument, both in guilt and penalty phase, to be either waived or not considered to be prejudicial.

  10. Wilson v. State

    142 So. 3d 732 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that it was not improper for the prosecutor to swing a baseball bat during closing arguments in a case where the evidence indicated that the defendant had attacked the victim with a baseball bat

    Thus, Investigator Luker did not offer expert scientific testimony, and the State was not required to establish his qualifications as an expert in blood-spatter analysis. See Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143, 1146 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) (reaffirmance that lay witnesses may identify a substance as blood); Gavin, 891 So.2d at 967–70 (holding that it was not error to allow lay testimony that “the blood flow coming from the body ran away from the area of the seat that [defendant] would have been seated in”).