Murray v. State

21 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Alabama State Tenure Comm

    825 So. 2d 805 (Ala. 2001)   Cited 1 times
    In Ex parte Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 825 So.2d 805 (Ala. 2001), the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court holding that Odom and Borden were prejudiced by having a joint hearing.

    555 So.2d at 795, quoting Holsemback v. State, 443 So.2d 1371 at 1377 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). The Gibson case concludes: "On appeal, `appellant has a heavy burden of establishing that he was unable to obtain a fair trial without a severance and that he suffered compelling prejudice which the trial court could not prevent.' Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891, 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986)." Gibson, 555 So.2d at 795.

  2. Ex Parte Frith

    526 So. 2d 880 (Ala. 1988)   Cited 175 times
    Holding that “[t]he statement of specific grounds of objection waives all grounds not specified”

    The 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. State v. Holloway, 293 Ala. 543, 307 So.2d 13 (1975); Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 426.01(11) (3d ed. 1977). Therefore, due to petitioner's failure to object at trial on the two additional grounds asserted in his petition, those issues are not properly before this Court for consideration.

  3. Largin v. State

    233 So. 3d 374 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that State's use of 22 of 29 strikes against female veniremembers did not raise an inference of discrimination

    " ‘there is no constitutional right to plea bargain; the prosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. It is a novel argument that constitutional rights are infringed by trying the defendant rather than accepting his plea of guilty.’ See also Ex parte Pfalzgraf, 741 So.2d 1118 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), and Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App.1986)."

  4. Miller v. State

    1 So. 3d 1073 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that discussion of a plea agreement "does not establish that an enforceable plea agreement was reached"

    It is a novel argument that constitutional rights are infringed by trying the defendant rather than accepting his plea of guilty.' See also Ex parte Pfalzgraf, 741 So.2d 1118 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), and Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986)." Smith v. State, 908 So.2d 273, 282-83 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000)

  5. Smith v. State

    908 So. 2d 273 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001)   Cited 52 times

    " See also Ex parte Pfalzgraf, 741 So.2d 1118 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), and Murrayv. State, 494 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986). II.

  6. Bishop v. State

    690 So. 2d 502 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    The 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. State v. Holloway, 293 Ala. 543, 307 So.2d 13 (1975); Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); Ex Parte Frith, 526 So.2d 880 (Ala. 1987); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 254.01(3) (5th ed. 1996). IV.

  7. Woods v. State

    592 So. 2d 631 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 13 times

    The objections raised on appeal were not the objections stated at trial. Specific objections made to the trial court waive all other grounds not specified. Walker v. State, 519 So.2d 598 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); Blackmon v. State, 449 So.2d 1264 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Kennedy v. State, 373 So.2d 1274 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979). For the foregoing reasons, this case is due to be affirmed.

  8. Henderson v. State

    583 So. 2d 276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 148 times
    In Henderson v. State, 583 So.2d 276 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), aff'd, 583 So.2d 305 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908, 112 S.Ct. 1268, 117 L.Ed.2d 496 (1992), this court held that it was not reversible error for the prosecution to make a brief statement that it spoke on behalf of the victims' families.

    Such an objection does not preserve the issue now raised for appellate review, as a specific objection waives all grounds not specified. Hinton v. State, 548 So.2d 547, 557 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 56288 (Ala.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 419, 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989); Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891, 893 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). However, as discussed previously, because this is a death case we must determine whether introduction of these records constituted plain error.

  9. Gibson v. State

    555 So. 2d 784 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 36 times
    In Gibson v. State, 555 So.2d 784 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), this court held that the appellant could be sentenced as a habitual offender although one of his prior convictions was for a drug offense, which fell outside the scope of the criminal code.

    On appeal, "appellant has a heavy burden of establishing that he was unable to obtain a fair trial without a severance and that he suffered compelling prejudice which the trial court could not prevent." Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891, 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). In light of the test and considerations set out in Holsemback, this court finds no compelling prejudice to the codefendants here.

  10. Cole v. State

    548 So. 2d 629 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    Specific objections waive all others not specified. See Murray v. State, 494 So.2d 891, 893 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). II