Molton v. State

31 Citing cases

  1. Morris v. State

    196 So. 3d 1256 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)

    The trial court subsequently instructed the jury, after which both parties stated that they were satisfied with the instructions.In Molton v. State, 651 So.2d 663 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), this Court held that when, at the charge conference, a defendant clearly objects to the trial court's refusal to give a requested instruction and states specific reasons for that objection, the defendant is not required to renew his or her objection at the close of the oral instructions to preserve that issue for appellate review. Here, Morris requested the jury instruction on more than one occasion and stated his grounds for the request.

  2. Coleman v. State

    93 So. 3d 145 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    United States v. Bowie, 892 F.2d [1494,] 1502 [ (10th Cir.1990) ].”Molton v. State, 651 So.2d 663, 668–69 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (emphasis added). See also Wynn v. State, 804 So.2d 1122, 1132 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).

  3. M.S. v. State

    822 So. 2d 449 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)   Cited 5 times
    Holding ‘[t]he burden of proving that a conflict of interest rises to the level of ineffective assistance rests on the one asserting the conflict’

    In Molton v. State, 651 So.2d 663 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), we stated the following regarding successive legal representation and the potential for conflict: "It is 'a basic constitutional precept' that those prosecuted for criminal offenses have a right to the assistance of counsel during the proceedings.

  4. Wilkerson v. State

    686 So. 2d 1266 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996)   Cited 33 times
    In Wilkerson v. State, 686 So.2d 1266 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), this Court addressed whether it was reversible error for the circuit court to exclude evidence from an expert that the defendant did not have the ability to form intent.

    Rule 21.2, A.R.Crim.P., provides: "No party may assign as error the court's . . . failing to give a written instruction . . . unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection." In Molton v. State, 651 So.2d 663 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), Presiding Judge Bowen, writing for the Court, emphasized that Rule 21.2 requires only that objections be made "before the jury retires." Judge Bowen further stated in Molton: "[W]here . . . a defendant clearly objects at the charge conference to the trial court's refusal to give a written requested charge and states specific reasons for that objection, he is not required to renew his objection at the close of the oral instructions to preserve that issue for appellate review.

  5. Knight v. State

    300 So. 3d 76 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018)   Cited 20 times

    Knight admits that defense counsel cross-examined Bryant about his prior criminal record, but suggests that he could have cross-examined Bryant about his drug use and its possible effect on his perception. This Court addressed conflicts of interest in Molton v. State, 651 So.2d 663 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) : "It is ‘a basic constitutional precept’ that those prosecuted for criminal offenses have a right to the assistance of counsel during the proceedings.

  6. Coleman v. State

    CR-10-0421 (Ala. Crim. App. Oct. 4, 2011)

    "Molton v. State, 651 So. 2d 663, 668-69 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) (emphasis added). See also Wynn v. State, 804 So. 2d 1122, 1132 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).

  7. Coleman v. State

    No. CR-10-0421 (Ala. Crim. App. Sep. 30, 2011)

    "Molton v. State, 651 So. 2d 663, 668-69 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) (emphasis added).See also Wynn v. State, 804 So. 2d 1122, 1132 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).

  8. Wimberly v. State

    934 So. 2d 411 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that the appellant had not established that the denial of his motion to continue was prejudicial

    However, Alabama has never adopted such a rule. As we stated in Molton v. State, 651 So.2d 663 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994): "It is 'a basic constitutional precept' that those prosecuted for criminal offenses have a right to the assistance of counsel during the proceedings.

  9. Perkins v. Dunn

    CASE NO. 7:14-CV-1814-SLB (N.D. Ala. Sep. 19, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    In order to show that the collateral challenge to the Fayette County conviction based on a conflict of interest would have been successful, Perkins "must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350 (1980); see also Molton v. State, 651 So. 2d 663, 669 (Ala. Crim. App.1994)("The appellant did not raise the matter of a conflict of interest on the part of his trial counsel until well after the trial. Consequently, in order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, he must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance."

  10. Kappa Sigma Fraternity v. Price-Williams

    40 So. 3d 683 (Ala. 2009)   Cited 33 times
    Concluding that trial court's order was injunctive in nature because it commanded a party to perform a specific action

    "`[Attorneys are officers of the court and "` when they address the judge solemnly upon a matter before the court, their declarations are virtually made under oath.'"`" Molton v. State, 651 So.2d 663, 670 n. 6 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994) (quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 486, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978)); see also Ex parte Owen, 860 So.2d 877, 880 (Ala. 2003) (citing Molton). Accordingly, we will review with a presumption of correctness those portions of the trial court's decision based on the representations of counsel made at the November 20, 2008, hearing.