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.
§

Snider v. State

422 So. 2d 807 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Snider v. State

21 Citing cases

  1. Beaver v. State

    455 So. 2d 253 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)   Cited 41 times

    Initially, we note that Beaver had no right to have a special jury empaneled to determine the voluntariness of his statement to the Mobile police. "The issue of voluntariness is a question of law to be resolved by the trial judge in the first instance outside the hearing of the jury." Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807, 809 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Balentine v. State, 339 So.2d 1063, 1070 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1070 (Ala. 1976). Once the trial judge rules a confession admissible, the jurors may then accord it whatever weight and credibility they deem proper, taking into account the circumstances under which it was made.

  2. Gaddy v. State

    698 So. 2d 1100 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)   Cited 110 times
    Holding in the absence of any objection, a defendant's complaint that he was absent during a post-trial hearing must be analyzed under the plain error rule

    ' Johnson v. State, 453 So.2d 1323, 1326 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), quoting Logan v. State, 251 Ala. 441, 444, 37 So.2d 753, 755 (1948). For other cases wherein the officer's testimony was held sufficient to satisfy the State's predicate of voluntariness, see Gray v. State, 482 So.2d 1318, 1321 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Todd v. State, 472 So.2d 707 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Webb v. State, 447 So.2d 864 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Hadley v. State, 448 So.2d 465, 466-67 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Hammins v. State, 439 So.2d 809, 811 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982)."

  3. Stanley v. State

    512 So. 2d 147 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court's decision will not be overturned, unless clear abuse is shown. Id.; Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). Here, the trial court ruled the confession was voluntary.

  4. McCord v. State

    507 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 13 times

    Where the trial judge finds on conflicting evidence that the confession was voluntarily made, its finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless found to be manifestly contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Wiggins v. State, 440 So.2d 1164 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983); Raines v. State, 428 So.2d 206 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983); Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Hardy v. State, 409 So.2d 996 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982), Bennett v. State, 409 So.2d 936 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137, 102 S.Ct. 2968, 73 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1982)."

  5. Griffin v. State

    500 So. 2d 83 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 32 times
    In Griffin v. State, 500 So.2d 83, 87 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), the defendant was admitted to the hospital after he apparently attempted suicide by consumption of alcohol and an overdose of drugs.

    ' " Johnson v. State, 453 So.2d 1323, 1326 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), quoting Logan v. State, 251 Ala. 441, 444, 37 So.2d 753, 755 (1948). For other cases wherein the officer's testimony was held sufficient to satisfy the State's predicate of voluntariness, see Gray v. State, 482 So.2d 1318, 1321 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Todd v. State, 472 So.2d 707 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Webb v. State, 447 So.2d 864 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Hadley v. State, 448 So.2d 465, 466-67 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Hammins v. State, 439 So.2d 809, 811 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). VI.

  6. Thompson v. State

    503 So. 2d 871 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 82 times
    In Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 881 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), aff'd, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872, 108 S.Ct. 204, 98 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987), we stated that an appellant was not prejudiced when he received a copy of the presentence report one day prior to sentencing.

    "Even where there is credible testimony to the contrary, if the evidence is fairly capable of supporting the inference that the rules of freedom and voluntariness were observed, the ruling of the trial judge need only be supported by substantial evidence and not to a moral certainty." Bennett v. State, 409 So.2d 936 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), cert. denied, 409 So.2d 936 (Ala. 1982); Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); McNair v. State, 50 Ala. App. 465, 280 So.2d 171 (1973). It is clear from a review of the transcript that the trial judge correctly allowed the statements of the appellant into evidence as being understandingly and voluntarily made.

  7. O'Dell v. State

    482 So. 2d 1341 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 6 times

    "`In Palmer v. State, 401 So.2d 266, 268 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), the court held, "[W]here ample evidence, even though conflicting, exists from which the trial judge could conclude that the appellant was not intoxicated to the extent of mania, the admission of a confession for a jury's consideration is not an abuse of discretion." In further regard to contradictory evidence at a voluntariness hearing, the court in Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), held that when conflicting evidence is presented great weight will be given to the trial court's determination of the issue.'" (Citations omitted.)

  8. Scanland v. State

    473 So. 2d 1182 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 43 times
    In Scanland v. State, 473 So.2d 1182 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), the appellant argued that his intoxication at the time of questioning by the police rendered any statements he made involuntary.

    The prosecution brought forth testimony which properly showed that the appellant was advised of his Miranda rights, that he had not been threatened, intimidated coerced or promised any reward for making a statement, and that he freely and voluntarily waived his rights. It is the province of the trial judge to first determine the voluntariness of a statement in a voir dire examination outside the presence of the jury and unless there is clear abuse this decision will not be overturned. Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So.2d 840 (1965); Shewey v. State, 48 Ala. App. 730, 267 So.2d 520 (1972); Bills v. State, 49 Ala. App. 726, 275 So.2d 706 (1973); Shorts v. State, 412 So.2d 830 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981); Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). Further, "[t]his court has held on many occasions that in order for intoxication to render a confession inadmissible, it must amount to a `mania' which impairs the will and mind to the extent that the person confessing is unconscious of the meaning of his words, [a] lesser state of intoxication will not render a confession inadmissible.

  9. Crozier v. State

    465 So. 2d 1190 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    "It is the province of the trial judge to first determine the voluntariness of a statement in a voir dire examination outside the presence of the jury, and unless there is clear abuse this discretion will not be overturned." Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So.2d 840 (1965); Shewey v. State, 48 Ala. App. 730, 267 So.2d 520 (1972); Bills v. State, 49 Ala. App. 726, 275 So.2d 706 (1973); Hardy v. State, 409 So.2d 996 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Boggan v. State, 455 So.2d 228 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984). Further, "[w]hen the evidence on the circumstances surrounding the appellant's confession is conflicting, the trial judge must determine its admissibility. If admitted, then the controverted testimony for the appellant goes to the jury on the confession's credibility.

  10. Smith v. State

    466 So. 2d 1026 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that evidence of a victim's character is not admissible when the accused was the aggressor

    "In Palmer v. State, 401 So.2d 266, 268 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), the court held, `[W]here ample evidence, even though conflicting, exists from which the trial judge could conclude that the appellant was not intoxicated to the extent of mania, the admission of a confession for a jury's consideration is not an abuse of discretion.' In further regard to contradictory evidence at a voluntariness hearing, the court in Snider v. State, 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), held that when conflicting evidence is presented great weight will be given to the trial court's determination of the issue." Campbell, supra at 915.