Smith v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Perkins v. State

    808 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 129 times
    Concluding that use of MMPI did not violate Fifth Amendment rights of defendant who put mental health at issue

    Moreover, the possibility that State's Exhibits 74 and 82 were tampered with, and other specimens containing semen with a DNA profile matching that of Perkins introduced into the stream of evidence, is so exceedingly remote as "to remove from the issue of the chain of custody of the evidence the question of admissibility and to present instead a question of weight and credibility."Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240, 1247 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). B.

  2. Wood v. State Personnel Bd.

    705 So. 2d 413 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that the legal rights of the public were not substantially affected because "the regulation is an internal policy and procedure statement relating strictly to DOC personnel" ( i.e., "intra-agency") that had "no appreciable effect on the public" and apparently relying primarily on another exception to find the rulemaking requirements inapplicable

    "[I]t is to be presumed that the integrity of evidence routinely handled by governmental officials was suitably preserved '[unless the accused makes] a minimal showing of ill will, bad faith, evil motivation, or some evidence of tampering.' United States v. Roberts, 844 F.2d 537, 549 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 983, 109 S.Ct. 534, 102 L.Ed.2d 565(1988).Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240, 1246 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). Wood presented no evidence of bad faith or tampering on the part of Donald Phillips. Phillips's failure to testify constituted a "weak" but not a "missing" link in the chain of custody; that weakness presented a question of weight, but not a barrier to admissibility.

  3. Jones v. State

    322 So. 3d 979 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019)   Cited 7 times

    "The State's reliance on circumstantial evidence of the chain of custody was adequate. See e.g., Smith v. State, 677 So. 2d 1240, 1245 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) (‘If the State, or any other proponent of demonstrative evidence, fails to identify a link ... the result is a ‘missing’ link, and the item is inadmissible. If, however, the State has shown each link, but has done so with circumstantial evidence, as opposed to the direct testimony of the ‘link,’ as to one or more criteria or as to one or more links, the result is a ‘weak’ link.

  4. Calhoun v. State

    932 So. 2d 923 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)   Cited 101 times
    Finding no plain error regarding Batson

    Ex parte Brooks, 695 So.2d 184, 193 n. 3 (Ala. 1997). We have said that the TWGDAM guidelines satisfy the more stringent Ex parte Perry test. Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). Calhoun also challenges the admission of population-frequency statistical evidence.

  5. Adams v. State

    955 So. 2d 1037 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 44 times
    In Adams v. State, 955 So.2d 1037, 1081–83 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), writ. granted in part, reversed in part on other grounds, Ex parte Adams, 955 So.2d 1106 (Ala.2005), Adams argued that his cross-examination of a State's witness was improperly restricted because he was not allowed to question the witness concerning his prior convictions for encouraging the delinquency of a minor and for indecent exposure.

    Clearly, the testimony was sufficient to comply with the requirements of § 36-18-23. Compare Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995) (TWGDAM procedures used in DNA analysis found to satisfy the more stringent Ex parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala. 1991), test.) XVII.

  6. Adams v. State

    No. CR-98-0496 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 29, 2003)   Cited 1 times

    Clearly, the testimony was sufficient to comply with the requirements of § 36-18-23. Compare Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995) (TWGDAM procedures used in DNA analysis found to satisfy the more stringent Ex parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala. 1991), test.) XVII.

  7. Thomas v. State

    824 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 58 times
    Recognizing that to rise to the level of plain error, an error must have affected the outcome of the trial

    in the chain of custody did not testify and were only generally identified as a [hospital emergency room] unit secretary and a person from the [hospital] laboratory" who "picked up the sample," the court found no break in the chain of custody of the blood sample because "[t]he evidence and the totality of the circumstances in this case establish a reasonable probability of the identity of the blood sample and the integrity of the continuity of possession," id. at 956),quoted with approval in Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1104 (Ala.Cr.App. 1999) (no plain error in the procedure for safeguarding evidence used by the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences lab, specifically allowing the contract driver who delivered evidence to the lab to place items in a secured locker when forensic examiners are unavailable to receive evidence); Whitt v. State, 733 So.2d 463, 473-74 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998) (no break in chains of items retrieved at crime scene although the scene was unattended at times); Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240, 1246 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995) (recognized the law as quoted inMoorman and as applied in a hospital setting). See also Wallace v. State, 574 So.2d 968, 970 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990).

  8. Jackson v. State

    836 So. 2d 915 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that because there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice's testimony, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the necessity of corroborating accomplice testimony “did not rise to the level of plain error and was, at most, harmless error. SeeRule 45, Ala. R.App. P.”

    The absence of Sparrow's testimony constitutes, at most, a weak link in the chain of custody, which would go to the weight and credibility of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995); Knight v. State, 622 So.2d 426, 430 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). Moreover, even if there had been a break in the chain of custody for the bullet, Dr. Lauridson identified the bullet that was introduced into evidence as the one he removed from the victim's body during the autopsy.

  9. Nix v. State

    747 So. 2d 351 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that a defendant's claim that the State "did not sufficiently prove the prior convictions for purposes of enhancing his sentence" was "not preserved for . . . review" because the defendant had not objected at trial

    Although Officer Treadaway did not testify regarding the handling of the packages, the State offered sufficient evidence to show that the cocaine was delivered to the state toxicologist in the same condition it was in when it was retrieved from the scene by Officer Bemis. At most, the absence of Officer Treadaway's testimony constitutes a weak link in the chain of custody, which goes to the weight and credibility of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995); Knight v. State, 622 So.2d 426, 430 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). The appellant also complains that the absence of testimony regarding who picked up the bags of cocaine from the toxicology lab after they had been tested constituted a break in the chain of the custody.

  10. Hayes v. State

    717 So. 2d 30 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that remoteness of prior assault relevant to weight and credibility of evidence, not to admissibility

    Such conflicts present a question for the finder of fact. Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). There was ample evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that the trial attorney's performance was not deficient.