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.
§

Townsend v. State

823 So. 2d 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Townsend v. State

22 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. State

    104 So. 3d 254 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 25 times
    In Williams, supra, the Alabama court recognized that the analysis utilized in unit-of-prosecution cases could still be instructive in multiple description cases on the issue of determining whether a defendant's conduct arises out of the same act or transaction. Williams, 104 So.3d at 261–62 (citing Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717, 721–24 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001), a unit-of-prosecution case).

    In Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), this Court recognized that “[o]nly an analysis of the facts will dictate whether a defendant's possession was sufficiently differentiated by time or location as to constitute separate units for prosecution or whether it constitutes a single offense.” 823 So.2d at 724.

  2. McPherson v. State

    933 So. 2d 1114 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that "Counts I, II, and III of the indictment alleged various methods of proving [the same offense] rather than independent, separate offenses. Therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter judgments on both counts of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling"

    " "` Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717, 722 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) (footnote omitted [in Girard]).'

  3. Scott v. State

    917 So. 2d 159 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that § 13A–12–200.11, Ala. Code 1975, that part of the Alabama Anti–Obscenity Enforcement Act that prohibits the display of genitals, etc., for entertainment purposes, was not void for vagueness, even though the terms ‘business establishment,’ ‘for entertainment purposes,’ and ‘allow’ were not specifically defined in the Criminal Code

    ' " Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717, 722 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) (footnote omitted)." 883 So.2d at 715-16.

  4. State v. Itzol-Deleon

    537 S.W.3d 434 (Tenn. 2017)   Cited 14 times
    Reviewing out-of-state caselaw and adopting similar factors to those established in Colorado and New Mexico for incidents of sexual assault

    Id. at 661 (short citations modified to full citations). In Williams, supra, the Alabama court recognized that the analysis utilized in unit-of-prosecution cases could still be instructive in multiple description cases on the issue of determining whether a defendant's conduct arises out of the same act or transaction. Williams, 104 So.3d at 261–62 (citing Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717, 721–24 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001), a unit-of-prosecution case). The New Mexico Supreme Court also has recognized that unit-of-prosecution cases can be of assistance in offering guidance to the difficult task of determining whether, in a multiple description case, a defendant's conduct arose out of the same act or transaction.

  5. People v. Whitmer

    59 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 142 times
    In Whitmer involving the dealership manager, and other cases Bailey had relied upon but distinguished, the defendant had committed similar, but separate and distinct, fraudulent acts.

    Cases in many other jurisdictions have held the rule of lenity applicable to unit of prosecution issues. (See Bell v. United States (1955) 349 U.S. 81, 83, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905 ["When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will [with respect to the unit of prosecution], the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity."]; U.S. v. Emly (8th Cir.2014) 747 F.3d 974, 977 ; U.S. v. Lagrone (5th Cir.2014) 743 F.3d 122, 126 ; U.S. v. Shrader (4th Cir.2012) 675 F.3d 300, 313 ; U.S. v. Diaz (3d Cir.2010) 592 F.3d 467, 474 ; U.S. v. Finley (2d Cir.2001) 245 F.3d 199, 207 ; U.S. v. Verrecchia (1st Cir.1999) 196 F.3d 294, 297 ; U.S. v. Wilson (D.C.Cir.1998) 160 F.3d 732, 749 ; U.S. v. Keen (9th Cir.1996) 104 F.3d 1111, 1119 ; U.S. v. Song (7th Cir.1991) 934 F.2d 105, 108 ; U.S. v. Mastrangelo (11th Cir.1984) 733 F.2d 793, 801 ; U.S. v. Valentine (10th Cir.1983) 706 F.2d 282, 293 ; U.S. v. Rosenbarger (6th Cir.1976) 536 F.2d 715, 721 ; Townsend v. State (Ala.Crim.App.2001) 823 So.2d 717, 723 ; People v. Lowe (Colo.1983) 660 P.2d 1261, 1269, overruled on other grounds in Callis v. People (Colo.1984) 692 P.2d 1045, 1050, fn. 7 ; State v. Rawls (1985) 198 Conn. 111, 122, 502 A.2d 374, 379 ; Neal v. State (Fla.App.2013) 109 So.3d 1245, 1250 ; State v. Auwae (App.1998) 89 Hawai‘i 59, 70, 968 P.2d 1070, 1081, overruled on other grounds in State v. Jenkins (2000) 93 Hawai‘i 87, 997 P.2d 13, and cited with approval in State v. Shimabukuro (2002) 100 Hawai‘i 324, 327, 60 P.3d 274, 277 ; People v. Manning (1978) 71 Ill.2d 132, 137, 374 N.E.2d 200, 202 ; State v. Muhlenbruch (Iowa 2007) 728 N.W.2d 212, 216 ; State v. King (2013) 297 Kan. 955, 971, 305 P.3d 641, 654 ; Miles v. State (1998) 349 Md. 215, 227–228, 707 A.2d 841, 847 ; Commonwealth v. Rabb (2000) 431 Mass. 123, 128, 725 N.E.2d 1036, 1041 ; People v. Haggart (1985) 142 Mich.App. 330, 348, 370 N.W.2d 345, 354 ; State v. Liberty (Mo.2012) 370 S.W.3d 537, 553 ; State v. Jennings (2007) 155 N.H. 768, 777, 929 A.2d 982, 990 ; S

  6. Girard v. State

    883 So. 2d 717 (Ala. 2003)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that the proper unit of prosecution for the offense of possessing “any obscene material” under Alabama's child pornography statute “is the possession of the obscene matter, regardless of how many items are actually possessed”

    ' " Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717, 722 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) (footnote omitted). "The Court of Criminal Appeals has addressed Girard's argument regarding multiple prosecutions one time and then only in dicta.

  7. Hopson v. State

    292 So. 3d 407 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Girard, 883 So.2d at 715 (citing Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955) ). In Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001), this Court stated: " ‘A single crime cannot be divided into two or more offenses and thereby subject the perpetrator to multiple convictions for the same offense.

  8. Revis v. State

    101 So. 3d 247 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that “evidence tending to establish motive is always admissible”

    ’ “ ‘ “Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717, 722 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (footnote omitted [in Girard ] ).” “ ‘Girard [ v. State ], 883 So.2d [714] at 715–16 [ (Ala.Crim.App.2002) ].

  9. C.B.D. v. State

    90 So. 3d 227 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)

    (“when the government seeks to prove that a single act or occurrence results in multiple violations of the same statute, the rule of lenity requires only one punishment unless legislative intent to impose multiple punishments is shown”).’ “Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717, 722 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (footnote omitted). “....

  10. C. B. D. v. State

    No. CR-10-0640 (Ala. Crim. App. Dec. 16, 2011)

    "'4 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 17.4(b), 2001 Pocket Part n.66 (2d ed. 1999). See also Project, "Twenty-Ninth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure," 88 Geo. L.J. 879, 1293 (2000) ("when the government seeks to prove that a single act or occurrence results in multiple violations of the same statute, the rule of lenity requires only one punishment unless legislative intent to impose multiple punishments is shown").'"Townsend v. State, 823 So. 2d 717, 722 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (footnote omitted)."....