Sullivan v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Mitchell v. State

    706 So. 2d 787 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that a defendant was not entitled to the benefits of juvenile Miranda rights because he was 18 years and 6 months old

    . . .' "Mitchell v. State, 570 So.2d 738, 739 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (quoting Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130,135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)). Mitchell contends that the State failed, on each count, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of felony murder.

  2. S.S.S. v. State

    662 So. 2d 1211 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    "Where a motion for judgment of acquittal is made at the close of the State's case, the trial court has a duty to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction under the indictment by considering the evidence before the jury at the time of the motion, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Faircloth v. State, 471 So.2d 485, 489 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), aff'd, 471 So.2d 493 (Ala. 1985)." See also Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Rule 20.2, A.R.Cr.P. Additionally, in State v. Terry, 601 So.2d 161, 163 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), this court held:

  3. Johnson v. State

    642 So. 2d 528 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)   Cited 3 times

    " 'When there is legal evidence from which the jury could, by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the trial court should submit the case for the jury to determine the weight it will give the evidence.' Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)."Ayers v. State, 594 So.2d 719, 720 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991).

  4. Ayers v. State

    594 So. 2d 719 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 8 times
    In Ayers v. State, 594 So.2d 719 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), this Court considered whether the trial court erred in failing to give a jury instruction on sexual misconduct as a lesser-included offense of rape because, Ayers argued, there was no evidence indicating that the victim had "external signs of trauma and otherwise fail[ed] to scream or resist her attacker."

    "When there is legal evidence from which the jury could, by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the trial court should submit the case for the jury to determine the weight it will give the evidence." Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Because the state did present evidence of forcible compulsion pursuant to § 13A-6-60(8), Code of Alabama 1975, we find that the trial court correctly denied the appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal.

  5. Edwards v. State

    574 So. 2d 864 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 4 times
    In Edwards v. State, 574 So.2d 864 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), Edwards claimed that the photographic lineup was tainted because the witness believed the culprit was among the photographs that she was shown.

    . . ."Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). See Mitchell v. State, 570 So.2d 738 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990).

  6. Mitchell v. State

    570 So. 2d 738 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    . . ."Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Because sufficiency of evidence is challenged, we will give a detailed recitation of the facts.

  7. Cordar v. State

    538 So. 2d 1241 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)   Cited 1 times

    However, the above evidence along with the prosecutrix being mentally slow was sufficient for the judge to allow this to go to the jury, who determined the appellant exercised physical force which overcame the prosecutrix's earnest resistance. As stated in Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983): "When a motion for a judgment of acquittal before submission of cause to a jury is made on the grounds that the state has failed to make out a prima facie case because the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the trial court to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction under the indictment.

  8. Nichols v. State

    500 So. 2d 92 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 15 times
    In Nichols v. State, 500 So.2d 92 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), the appellant's conviction for hindering prosecution was affirmed in a case where it was "clear from testimony at the trial that the appellant knowingly, willingly, and consciously lied to the criminal investigators concerning the circumstances of the rape."

    State v. Rodriguez, supra, 509 A.2d at 71-72. See also Taylor v. City of Decatur, 465 So.2d 479 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Fletcher v. State, 460 So.2d 341 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). IV.

  9. Andrews v. State

    473 So. 2d 1211 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 21 times

    When there is legal evidence from which the jury could, by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the trial court should submit it to the jury, and, in such a case, this court will not disturb the trial court's decision. Koger v. State, 443 So.2d 1343 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983), Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983); Bozeman v. State, 401 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 171 (Ala.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1058 (1981); Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 1164 (Ala.Crim.App.), writ quashed, 378 So.2d 1173 (Ala. 1979); A.R.Crim.P.Temp. 12.1 (a),(b), and 12.2 (a)-(c). The State's evidence before the jury at the time of the motion to exclude showed that the jailer, Wooten, came to work at the Cherokee County jail early in the morning of May 6, 1983. He relieved the night jailer, who immediately left the jail.