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.
§

Williams v. State

546 So. 2d 705 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Williams v. State

16 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Long

    600 So. 2d 982 (Ala. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that vehicular homicide was a lesser-included offense of murder when the facts established that the defendant ran his vehicle over a curb and killed an individual

    We find no cases from this Court directly on the point of the admissibility of mug shots, but the Court of Criminal Appeals has, in numerous cases, relied on the three prerequisites established in United States v. Harrington, 490 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1973), for a ruling that the introduction of a "mug shot" photograph does not result in reversible error. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989); Jones v. State, 451 So.2d 389 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984); Gross v. State, supra; Williamson v. State, 384 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980); Holsclaw v. State, 364 So.2d 378 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978); but see Brown v. State, 229 Ala. 58, 155 So. 358 (1934) (fact that defendant was in jail when photograph was taken did not present reversible error as to admission of the photograph). The three requirements set out in Harrington are:

  2. James v. State

    788 So. 2d 185 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)   Cited 30 times

    See, e.g., Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989); Jones v. State, 451 So.2d 389 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984); Gross v. State, supra; Williamson v. State, 384 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980); Holsclaw v. State, 364 So.2d 378 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978); but see Brown v. State, 229 Ala. 58, 155 So. 358 (1934) (fact that defendant was in jail when photograph was taken did not present reversible error as to admission of the photograph). The three requirements set out in Harrington are:

  3. Weaver v. State

    678 So. 2d 260 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that the district attorney's office need not recuse itself from a case because an assistant district attorney had represented the appellant's accomplice before being employed by the district attorney's office.

    "In determining whether an instruction concerning flight should have been given, the question is 'simply whether such evidence was presented.' " Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705, 707 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989) (quoting Ex parte McGee, 383 So.2d 205, 206 (Ala. 1980)). Instructing a jury that it may use evidence of flight from which to infer the defendant's consciousness of guilt when there has been no evidence of flight presented is improper.

  4. Ex Parte Appleton

    828 So. 2d 894 (Ala. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    "The danger inherent in a one-man showup, where a witness is shown a single suspect and asked, `Is that the man?' is twofold. First, a one-man showup conveys a clear message that `the police suspect this man.' Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705, 706 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989) (quoting Biggers v. Tennessee, 390 U.S. 404, 407, 88 S.Ct. 979, 981, 19 L.Ed.2d 1267, 1269 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original)). Second, a one-man showup does not give the witness a choice of identifying any other person as being the perpetrator of the crime charged.

  5. Ex Parte Frazier

    729 So. 2d 253 (Ala. 1998)   Cited 13 times

    First, a one-man showup conveys a clear message that "the police suspect this man." Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705, 706 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989) (quoting Biggers v. Tennessee, 390 U.S. 404, 407, 88 S.Ct. 979, 981, 19 L.E.2d 1267, 1269 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original)). Second, a one-man showup does not give the witness a choice of identifying any other person as being the perpetrator of the crime charged.

  6. Ex Parte Howard

    710 So. 2d 460 (Ala. 1997)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that Alabama law permits a prosecution for robbery following a conviction for receiving stolen property

    A person commits robbery if in the course of committing a theft that person "(1) [u]ses force . . . or (2)[t]hreatens the imminent use of force," with the intent to compel the owner to relinquish possession of the property. Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-8-43(a); see Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Robbery in the first degree adds an additional element — using a deadly weapon or causing serious physical injury. § 13A-8-41.

  7. Watkins v. State

    No. CR-20-0670 (Ala. Crim. App. Mar. 11, 2022)

    Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705, 706 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) (quoting Biggers v. Tennessee, 390 U.S. 404, 407, 88 S.Ct. 979, 981, 19 L.Ed.2d 1267, 1269 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original)).

  8. Townes v. State

    253 So. 3d 447 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 19 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the defendant’s statement was voluntary because the statement "was not the product of any threats, inducements, or promises" and because the defendant "was fairly calm and did not appear to be under undue stress"

    " ‘We find no cases from this Court directly on the point of the admissibility of mug shots, but the Court of Criminal Appeals has, in numerous cases, relied on the three prerequisites established in United States v. Harrington, 490 F.2d 487 (2d Cir.1973), for a ruling that the introduction of a "mug shot" photograph does not result in reversible error. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) ; Jones v. State, 451 So.2d 389 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) ; Gross v. State, supra; Williamson v. State, 384 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Crim.App.1980) ; Holsclaw v. State, 364 So.2d 378 (Ala.Crim.App.1978) ; but see Brown v. State, 229 Ala. 58, 155 So. 358 (1934) (fact that defendant was in jail when photograph was taken did not present reversible error as to admission of the photograph). The three requirements set out in Harrington are:

  9. Gavin v. State

    891 So. 2d 907 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)   Cited 181 times
    Holding that trial court's failure to enter specific findings as to all aggravating circumstances when it specifically found and made findings concerning the existence of three aggravating circumstances was not plain error

    First, a one-man showup conveys a clear message that "the police suspect this man." Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705, 706 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989) (quoting Biggers v. Tennessee, 390 U.S. 404, 407, 88 S.Ct. 979, 981, 19 L.Ed.2d 1267, 1269 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original)). Second, a one-man showup does not give the witness a choice of identifying any other person as being the perpetrator of the crime charged.

  10. McNabb v. State

    887 So. 2d 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that “testimony that may be inadmissible may be rendered harmless by prior or subsequent lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred”

    "We find no cases from this Court directly on the point of the admissibility of mug shots, but the Court of Criminal Appeals has, in numerous cases, relied on the three prerequisites established in United States v. Harrington, 490 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1973), for a ruling that the introduction of a `mug shot' photograph does not result in reversible error. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 546 So.2d 705 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989); Jones v. State, 451 So.2d 389 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984); Gross v. State, supra; Williamson v. State, 384 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980); Holsclaw v. State, 364 So.2d 378 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978); but see Brown v. State, 229 Ala. 58, 155 So. 358 (1934) (fact that defendant was in jail when photograph was taken did not present reversible error as to admission of the photograph). The three requirements set out in Harrington are: