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.
§

Walker v. State

386 So. 2d 762 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Walker v. State

16 Citing cases

  1. Walker v. Davis

    840 F.2d 834 (11th Cir. 1988)   Cited 18 times

    The state criminal court of appeals declined to address the merits of the issue of the prosecutor testifying as a witness because of petitioner's failure to object at trial. Walker v. State, 386 So.2d 762 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980). Walker then filed a writ of habeas corpus petition in district court.

  2. State v. Discoe

    334 N.W.2d 466 (N.D. 1983)   Cited 28 times
    Recognizing that a district court is in a superior position to determine the weight to give a witness's testimony

    Carlson, supra; Roquette, supra; State v. Thompson, 256 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 1977). See also Walker v. State, 386 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr. App. 1980); People v. Aldridge, 37 Ill.Dec. 286, 79 Ill.2d 87, 402 N.E.2d 176 (1980); People v. Martin, 99 Mich. App. 570, 297 N.W.2d 718 (1980). The trial court's disposition of a motion to suppress will not be reversed if, after conflicts in the testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance [ People v. Rodriguez, 117 Cal.App.3d 706, 173 Cal.Rptr. 82 (1981); State v. Baker, 4 Kan. App. 2d 340, 606 P.2d 120 (1980); State v. Shaffer, 96 Wis.2d 531, 292 N.W.2d 370 (1980); State v. Hockings, 86 Wis.2d 709, 273 N.W.2d 339 (1979); Norwood v. State, 74 Wis.2d 343, 246 N.W.2d 801 (1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 949, 97 S.Ct. 1589, 51 L.Ed.2d 798 (1977)], there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's determination.

  3. Ex Parte Walker

    386 So. 2d 765 (Ala. 1980)   Cited 1 times

    August 22, 1980. Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 386 So.2d 762. EMBRY, Justice.

  4. Cartwright v. State

    346 So. 3d 22 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    " ‘ "Delays occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length of delay and are heavily counted against the defendant in applying the balancing test of Barker." ’ " Zumbado v. State, 615 So. 2d 1223, 1234 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (quoting McCallum v. State, 407 So. 2d 865, 868 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981), quoting in turn, Walker v. State, 386 So. 2d 762, 763 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) ). Moreover, as this Court stated in Irvin, 940 So. 2d at 343 :

  5. Sharifi v. State

    993 So. 2d 907 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)   Cited 68 times
    Concluding there was ‘no plain error in the incomplete presentence report as it is clear that the circuit court had access to the omitted information’

    "'Delays occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length of delay and are heavily counted against the defendant in applying the balancing test of Barker.' Walker v. State, 386 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ denied, 386 So.2d 765 (Ala. 1980)." McCallum v. State, 407 So.2d 865, 868 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981).

  6. D.B. v. State

    861 So. 2d 4 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)   Cited 7 times

    See, e.g., Ex parte Clopton, 656 So.2d 1243 (Ala. 1995), and Wheat v. State, 662 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). In addition, "'[d]elays occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length of delay and are heavily counted against the defendant in applying the balancing test of Barker.'"Zumbado v. State, 615 So.2d 1223, 1234 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993), quotingMcCallum v. State, 407 So.2d 865, 868 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), quoting in turn Walker v. State, 386 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala.Crim.App.), rev'd in part and vacated in part, 860 F.2d 1091 (11th Cir. 1988). This case is unique in that the majority of the 20-month delay — 16 months, in fact — cannot be weighed in favor of or against either the State or the appellant.

  7. Roberson v. State

    864 So. 2d 379 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that a 74-month delay in a first-degree-possession-of-marijuana case did not deprive the defendant of his right to a speedy trial even though he had asserted his right to a speedy trial 4 times

    "`"Delays occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length of delay and are heavily counted against the defendant in applying the balancing test ofBarker."'" Zumbado v. State, 615 So.2d 1223, 1234 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993), quoting McCallum v. State, 407 So.2d 865, 868 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), quoting in turn Walker v. State, 386 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala.Crim.App.), rev'd in part and vacated in part, 860 F.2d 1091 (11th Cir. 1988). Roberson has not even alleged, much less shown, that the delay was purposeful and deliberate on the part of the prosecutor.

  8. Dawson v. State

    710 So. 2d 467 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996)   Cited 5 times

    "Delays occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length of delay and are heavily counted against the defendant in applying the balancing test of Barker." Walker v. State, 386 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 765 (Ala. 1980). As to the appellant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, the appellant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment four weeks after he was arrested.

  9. Williams v. State

    601 So. 2d 1062 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 119 times
    In Williams v. State, 601 So.2d 1062 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), this Court addressed a similar situation, in which Williams argued that the introduction of a psychiatrist's testimony during the penalty phase of his trial violated Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981).

    This court has previously held that, "[d]elays occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length of delay and are heavily counted against the defendant in applying the balancing test of Barker." Walker v. State, 386 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 765 (Ala. 1980).

  10. Kelley v. State

    568 So. 2d 405 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 51 times

    "Delays occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length of delay and are heavily counted against the defendant in applying the balancing test of Barker." Walker v. State, 386 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 765 (Ala. 1980). See also Argo v. State, 282 Ala. 509, 213 So.2d 244 (1968); Hammett v. State, 45 Ala. App. 52, 223 So.2d 293 (1969); Love v. State, 44 Ala. App. 85, 203 So.2d 140 (1967).