Robinson v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Clopton v. State

    601 So. 2d 1087 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)

    "All reasonable rules and regulations of the State Department of Conservation have the force and effect of law, and courts may take judicial knowledge of the same." West v. State, 30 Ala. App. 318, 321, 6 So.2d 434, 436 (1941), cert. denied, 242 Ala. 369, 370, 6 So.2d 436 (1942); accord, Robinson v. State, 43 Ala. App. 111, 112, 180 So.2d 282, 283 (1965); Sanders v. State, 53 Ala. App. 534, 539, 302 So.2d 117, 122 (1974). However, there is no indication in the record that the district court took judicial notice of anything.

  2. Maddox v. State

    520 So. 2d 143 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 10 times

    " 'Any act proving or tending to prove an effort or desire on the part of the defendant to obliterate evidence of a crime is relevant, for from such fact, if unexplained, the jury may justly infer consciousness of guilt.' " Robinson v. State, 43 Ala. App. 111, 116, 180 So.2d 282, 287 (1965), quoted in Mottenon v. State, 346 So.2d 18, 21 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977). "An effort to suppress evidence by an accused is evidence of guilt and is admissible even if it involves evidence of a separate offense.

  3. Watwood v. State

    389 So. 2d 549 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 27 times

    Any act proving or tending to prove an effort or desire on the part of the defendant to obliterate evidence of a crime is relevant, for from such fact, if unexplained, the jury may justly infer a consciousness of guilt. Robinson v. State, 43 Ala. App. 111, 180 So.2d 282 (1965). An effort to suppress evidence by an accused is evidence of guilt and is admissible even if it involves evidence of a separate offense.

  4. Mottenon v. State

    346 So. 2d 18 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 1 times

    "Evidence to show that the accused has attempted to fabricate or procure false evidence, to destroy or suppress certain evidence against himself, to corrupt witnesses for the state, procure their absence by threats of violence or otherwise, is always admissible as showing a consciousness of guilt * *." In Robinson v. State, 43 Ala. App. 111, 180 So.2d 282, states rule of law with reference to such evidence in this manner: "Any act proving or tending to prove an effort or desire on the part of the defendant to obliterate evidence of a crime is relevant, for from such fact, if unexplained, the jury may justly infer consciousness of guilt."

  5. Zeigler v. State

    294 So. 2d 468 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 11 times

    Both the corpus delicti of the crime and the appellant's guilty agency may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Newby v. State, 21 Ala. App. 353, 108 So. 272; Parks v. State, 21 Ala. App. 193, 106 So. 623; Robinson v. State, 43 Ala. App. 111, 180 So.2d 282. When attempting to show bias on the part of a witness, a question directed to such witness, inquiring as to his state of feeling, is a mere formality; such question, in many instances, would but serve to put the witness on his guard and thwart the purpose of the cross-examining counsel.

  6. Pierce v. State

    51 Ala. App. 166 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 8 times

    It is well settled that in criminal cases the flight or attempted flight of a defendant is a circumstance which the jury may take into consideration in determining guilt. Robinson v. State, 43 Ala. App. 111, 180 So.2d 282; Ragland v. State, 37 Ala. App. 542, 71 So.2d 535; and Owens v. State, 215 Ala. 42, 109 So. 109. This is true even where the conduct of the defendant tending to show flight is weak and inconclusive, McConnell v. State, 13 Ala. App. 79, 69 So. 333, or where several days have passed since the commission of the crime, and even though the defendant afterwards makes an apparently voluntary surrender.

  7. Heath v. State

    220 So. 2d 872 (Ala. Crim. App. 1969)   Cited 3 times

    Corpus delicti may be proven by circumstances as well as by positive facts. Robinson v. State, 43 Ala. App. 111, 180 So.2d 282. However, mere suspicion is not sufficient to establish a corpus delicti.