Simpson v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. State

    456 So. 2d 366 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 20 times

    The articles were, therefore, evidence in the case. Hope v. State, 378 So.2d 745 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 747 (Ala. 1979); Simpson v. State, 51 Ala. App. 279, 284 So.2d 734 (1973). As such, the articles were proper subjects for the prosecutor to comment upon and draw reasonable inferences from during his closing argument.

  2. Etheridge v. State

    414 So. 2d 157 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982)   Cited 17 times

    We hold, however, that the search in the present case was justified as a warrantless search by virtue of the probable cause plus exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Simpson v. State, 51 Ala. App. 279, 284 So.2d 734 (1973). Probable cause may be based solely on information obtained from an informant, provided the tip meets the two-pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964): the veracity prong and the basis of knowledge prong.

  3. Skipper v. State

    387 So. 2d 261 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 5 times

    Appellant correctly takes the position that the "Plain View Doctrine" does not apply where there is no justification for the intrusion. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Herrin v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 349 So.2d 103, cert. denied, 349 So.2d 110 (1977); Simpson v. State, 51 Ala. App. 279, 284 So.2d 734 (1973). Although there was considerable discussion and evidence pertaining to the question of the plainness of view of the growing marijuana, an answer to the question whether there was a violation of defendant's right to security against an unreasonable search and seizure does not turn, in whole or in part, upon the plain view doctrine.

  4. Hope v. State

    378 So. 2d 745 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 7 times

    Hence, the shirt was evidence in this case. Simpson v. State, 51 Ala. App. 279, 284 So.2d 734 (1973); Kabase v. State, 31 Ala. App. 77, 12 So.2d 758 (1943). As evidence, the shirt was a proper subject from which appellant's attorney could argue a number of reasonable inferences pointing toward his innocence.

  5. Hagendorfer v. State

    348 So. 2d 1097 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 1 times

    We therefore, are of the opinion that the appellant's argument is not well taken. Gamble v. State, 48 Ala. App. 605, 266 So.2d 817; Simpson v. State, 51 Ala. App. 279, 284 So.2d 734; Hill v. State, supra; Means v. State, 51 Ala. App. 8, 282 So.2d 356, cert. denied 291 Ala. 792, 282 So.2d 359, and authorities therein cited. Moreover, the appellant's own witnesses at trial identified the substance as marihuana.

  6. Kelsoe v. State

    306 So. 2d 47 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 4 times

    Where this is true an "article not introduced as evidence, but which was marked for identification, displayed to the jury and commented upon by witnesses was before the jury and was considered as evidence." Simpson v. State, 51 Ala. App. 279, 284 So.2d 734. The next morning police found in the pasture some 200 yards from the Broadway home, where appellant's sister lived, several articles, including a wig, a red shirt, sunglasses, and boots, which were identified as being worn by the robber, although the pistol was never found.