Street v. State

14 Citing cases

  1. Street v. State

    266 Ala. 289 (Ala. 1957)   Cited 27 times
    In Street, a sheriff who had witnessed Street's signing of the statement did not testify, but the Court held that the prosecutor's question referred to Street's failure to testify, not to his failure to call the sheriff as a witness.

    GOODWYN, Justice. We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Street v. State, 96 So.2d 680. The writ was granted to review that portion of the Court of Appeals' opinion holding that the remarks of the solicitor in his argument to the jury were not comments upon defendant's failure to testify, in violation of § 305, Tit. 15, Code 1940, as amended by Act No. 124, appvd.

  2. Gilmore v. State

    497 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 2 times

    "Based on well established case law in this State, appellant can defend his contention only by showing the trial court grossly abused its discretion in denying the motion. Street v. State, 39 Ala. App. 190, 96 So.2d 680 (1957); Graham v. State, 403 So.2d 275 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), writ quashed, Ex parte Graham, 403 So.2d 286 (Ala. 1980); United States v. Smith, 591 F.2d 1105 (1979).

  3. Sims v. State

    428 So. 2d 162 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 9 times

    Based on well established case law in this State, appellant can defend his contention only by showing the trial court grossly abused its discretion in denying the motion. Street v. State, 39 Ala. App. 190, 96 So.2d 680 (1957); Graham v. State, 403 So.2d 275 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), writ quashed, Ex parte Graham, 403 So.2d 286 (Ala. 1980); United States v. Smith, 591 F.2d 1105 (1979). The court, on May 4, granted appellant's motion to compel discovery of the names of witnesses to be called by the State.

  4. Harris v. State

    358 So. 2d 482 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 9 times

    Therefore, there was no error in submitting the case to the jury and in refusing to grant a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence. Morton, supra; Street v. State, 39 Ala. App. 190, 96 So.2d 680 (1957). II

  5. Worrell v. State

    307 So. 2d 74 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    " It is clear that the indictment, which follows substantially the language of the statute, as well as the form provided for in the Code, was not demurrable. Form No. 10, Title 15, Section 259, Code of Alabama 1940; Faulk v. State, supra; Brown et al. v. State, 52 Ala. 345; Fortenberry v. State, 35 Ala. App. 426, 48 So.2d 261, cert. denied, 254 Ala. 342, 48 So.2d 264; Street v. State, 39 Ala. App. 190, 96 So.2d 680, reversed on other grounds, 266 Ala. 289, 96 So.2d 686. II

  6. Clark v. State

    307 So. 2d 28 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 18 times

    We find no evidence of abuse of discretion in this case. Street v. State, 39 Ala. App. 190, 96 So.2d 680; Burleson v. State, 22 Ala. App. 526, 117 So. 500; Wyatt v. State, 35 Ala. App. 147, 46 So.2d 837. Appellant bitterly complains that he was denied due process in being placed in a line-up without counsel. It is true that he did not have counsel at that time, but it is also true, as shown by his own testimony on the motion to suppress, that he told the district attorney that he did not want a lawyer.

  7. O'Neal v. State

    298 So. 2d 62 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 9 times

    They were vigorous in the cross-examination of the state's witnesses and made numerous motions to exclude the testimony of various witnesses. Street v. State, 39 Ala. App. 190, 96 So.2d 680; Burleson v. State, 22 Ala. App. 526, 117 So. 500; Wyatt v. State, 35 Ala. App. 147, 46 So.2d 837; Gandy v. State, 49 Ala. App. 123, 269 So.2d 141. There can be no question but that appellant, Cofield and Floyd were accomplices in the attempted robbery of Kirkley and his resultant death. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the state to produce evidence corroborative of the testimony of Cofield and Floyd.

  8. Speegle v. State

    286 So. 2d 914 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    Strongly insisting that the evidence is insufficient or too weak to support the judgment and the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial, appellant lays great store upon the principle that burning by accident and natural causes must be satisfactorily excluded to justify a conviction of the crime of arson. Street v. State, 39 Ala. App. 190, 96 So.2d 680; Lowery v. State, 39 Ala. App. 505, 88 So.2d 854; Carr v. State, 16 Ala. App. 176, 76 So. 413. The principle stated is a corollary of the proposition that proof of the corpus delicti is required. Often quoted is the statement found in Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42:

  9. Gandy v. State

    269 So. 2d 141 (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 6 times

    Appellant urges a reversal of this case for the reason that the trial court denied his motion for a continuance. It is settled law that the question of granting or refusing a continuance rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court and the exercise of such discretion is not reviewable on appeal except for gross abuse. Street v. State, 39 Ala. App. 190, 96 So.2d 680. The indictment was returned by the grand jury on February 6, 1970. Copy of the indictment was served on the defendant on May 21, 1970. He was arraigned in the presence of his attorney on December 2, 1970, and entered a plea of not guilty. The case was set for trial on January 11, 1971, and passed until February 22, 1971.

  10. McCay v. State

    47 Ala. App. 496 (Ala. Crim. App. 1971)   Cited 1 times

    In an arson prosecution, if evidence presented by the State affords an inference that the fire was not accidental but was the result of human agency, the corpus delicti has been established. Street v. State, 39 Ala. App. 190, 96 So.2d 680. PRICE, Presiding Judge.