Ware v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Clark v. Headley

    Civil Action 2:20cv287-RAH-CSC (WO) (M.D. Ala. May. 2, 2023)

    ' Wilson v. State, 427 So.2d 148, 152 (Ala.Crim.App.1983) (quoting Watson v. State, 392 So.2d 1274, 1277 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), quoting in turn . . . Messelt v. State, 351 So.2d 636, 639 (Ala.Crim.App.1977)).” Ware v. State, 949 So.2d 169, 183 (Ala.Crim.App.2006).

  2. Hernandez v. Price

    Case No. 2:15-cv-00993-KOB-SGC (N.D. Ala. Sep. 25, 2018)

    "Ware v. State, 949 So. 2d 169, 183 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)."

  3. Howell v. Giles

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12cv1041-WHA [WO] (M.D. Ala. Mar. 4, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    The record reflects that J.E.H. did not file a motion for a new trial challenging the weight of the evidence. See, e.g., Ware v. State, 949 So.2d 169, 175 n.11 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) ("Ware did not address the weight of the evidence in his motion for a new trial; thus that issue is not preservedfor us to consider on appeal.")

  4. Tell v. Terex Corp.

    962 So. 2d 174 (Ala. 2007)   Cited 9 times

    However, we note that in order for the photographs to be properly considered at trial, they, of course, must be properly authenticated and relevant to the issue under consideration. See Rule 901, Ala. R. Evid. (addressing the requirement that evidence be authenticated and identified); Ware v. State, 949 So.2d 169, 181-82 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006) (photographs taken some 14 months after defendant's arrest were inadmissible because they were not properly authenticated; those same photographs also were rot relevant because they were taken at a time other than the time of the defendant's arrest); and Vandiver v. State, 37 Ala.App. 526, 73 So.2d 566 (Ala.Crim.App. 1953) (photographs taken several weeks after the occurrence at issue were inadmissible to establish how the scene looked at the time of the occurrence). III. Whether the trial court erred in denying Tell's motions to compel discovery and Tell's motion to deny or to continue the summary-judgment motion pursuant to Rule 56(f), Ala. R. Civ. P.

  5. State v. Cross

    386 So. 3d 861 (Ala. Crim. App. 2023)

    See Watson v. State, 392 So. 2d 1274 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)." Ware v. State, 949 So. 2d 169, 183 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).

  6. Born v. State

    331 So. 3d 626 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that a claim that a sentences violates the Eighth Amendment was not preserved for appellate review because the defendant did not raise the claim in the trial court

    Therefore, Born's sentence of life in prison for attempted murder was an appropriate sentence within the statutory range allowed for that offense and did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g., Ware v. State, 949 So. 2d 169, 183 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (" ‘It is well settled that "[w]here a trial judge imposes a sentence within the statutory range, this Court will not disturb that sentence on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of the trial judge's discretion." Alderman v. State, 615 So. 2d 640, 649 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).’ "

  7. Lane v. State

    66 So. 3d 830 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    See Watson v. State, 392 So.2d 1274 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980)"Ware v. State, 949 So.2d 169, 183 (Ala. Crim.App. 2006). Lane's 120-year sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; therefore, Lane is due no relief on this claim.

  8. Chapman v. State

    64 So. 3d 1120 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    " Ware v. State, 949 So.2d 169, 175-76 (Ala. Crim.App. 2006). See Ex Parte J.C., 882 So.2d 274, 277 (Ala. 2003).

  9. State v. J.L.D

    39 So. 3d 214 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)

    "The determination of the credibility and veracity of the witnesses and evidence is the responsibility of the trial court, not the appellate court." Ware v. State, 949 So.2d 169, 180 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006). The main opinion acknowledges this rule of law but declines to apply it here.

  10. Lewis v. State

    27 So. 3d 600 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)   Cited 5 times

    The State did not offer Detective Hardeman as an expert witness in the area of crime-scene investigation or reconstruction; thus, the propriety of the above testimony involves an analysis of the admissibility of opinion evidence by a lay witness. See Ware v. State, 949 So.2d 169, 182 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006). Rule 701, Ala. R. Evid., addresses the admissibility of opinion evidence by a lay witness; it states: