Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Perry v. State

368 So. 2d 305 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Perry v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. K.S. v. Carr

    618 So. 2d 707 (Ala. 1993)   Cited 48 times
    Stating that substantial evidence is "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved"

    Moreover, we have impliedly recognized this concern before, in a case that the majority now appears to contradict. In Perry v. State, 368 So.2d 305 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed a robbery conviction. The accused had not taken the stand at trial.

  2. Ex Parte Bates

    461 So. 2d 5 (Ala. 1984)   Cited 33 times

    Ross v. State, 74 Ala. 532 (1883); Lowery v. State, 38 Ala. App. 505, 88 So.2d 854 (1956)." Perry v. State, 368 So.2d 305, 309 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), reversed on other grounds, 368 So.2d 310 (Ala. 1979). The defendant who alleges that a witness is an accomplice has the burden of so proving, unless the evidence presented by the prosecution shows without dispute that the witness is an accomplice.

  3. Trammell v. Disc. Bd. of the Ala. State Bar

    431 So. 2d 1168 (Ala. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    Disbarring former district attorney for accepting money to bribe a member of the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles and involvement in scheme to purchase paroles for inmates

    When evidence regarding alleged duress is in dispute, a question of fact is presented for the jury. Perry v. State, 368 So.2d 305 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), rev'd 368 So.2d 312 (Ala. 1979), on remand 368 So.2d 312 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979); Fairbanks v. State, 46 Ala. App. 236, 239 So.2d 908 (Ala.Crim.App. 1970). In this case, the trier of fact, the Disciplinary Board, decided that Trammell was not acting under duress when he took money from Kornegay.

  4. Acres v. State

    548 So. 2d 459 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the confession of an accomplice was "sufficiently reliable to furnish the officers with probable cause to arrest appellant"

    We will not interfere with the trial judge unless there has been a clear abuse of his discretion. . . ."Perry v. State, 368 So.2d 305, 308 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 368 So.2d 310 (Ala. 1979) (as quoted in Minnifield v. State, 392 So.2d 1288, 1290 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), wherein the court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for mistrial based on the audible sobbing of the rape victim after her testimony). "[The trial judge] heard what transpired and has seen the scenario unfold.

  5. Brownlee v. State

    545 So. 2d 151 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 66 times

    Ross v. State, 74 Ala. 532 (1883); Lowery v. State, 38 Ala. App. 505, 88 So.2d 854 (1956).' Perry v. State, 368 So.2d 305, 309 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), reversed on other grounds, 368 So.2d 310 (Ala. 1979). The defendant who alleges that a witness is an accomplice has the burden of so proving, unless the evidence presented by the prosecution shows without dispute that the witness is an accomplice.

  6. Steele v. State

    512 So. 2d 142 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that evidence introduced after the defendant moves for a judgment of acquittal and moves to exclude cannot be considered in reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to exclude, because such evidence is outside the scope of review and "cannot be used to support the jury's verdict"

    For the corroboration requirement of this section to apply, however, 'it must clearly appear that the witness in question is an accomplice. Ross v. State, 74 Ala. 532 (1883); Lowery v. State, 38 Ala. App. 505, 88 So.2d 854 (1956).' Perry v. State, 368 So.2d 305, 309 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), reversed on other grounds, 368 So.2d 310 (Ala. 1979). The defendant who alleges that a witness is an accomplice has the burden of so proving, unless the evidence presented by the prosecution shows without dispute that the witness is an accomplice.