§

Yeomans v. State

898 So. 2d 878 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)
Yeomans v. State

43 Citing cases

  1. Yeomans v. State

    195 So. 3d 1018 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that Yeomans was denied the opportunity to file affidavits or otherwise respond to the State’s affidavit supporting Yeoman’s claim of juror misconduct

    On appeal, this Court remanded the case for the circuit court to “strike two of Yeomans's convictions and sentences for the murder of two or more persons pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct,” thereby leaving one conviction and sentence for the murder of two or more persons pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct as well as Yeomans's conviction and sentence for robbery-murder. Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878, 906 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).

  2. Keaton v. State

    375 So. 3d 44 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    Because Keaton did not move to strike the venire, we review this claim for plain error only. See Yeomans v. State, 898 So. 2d 878, 892 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) (reviewing for plain error a claim that was not raised at trial). [23] " ‘ "A challenge to the array or a motion to quash or strike the venire will not be sustained unless it is alleged and proved that the whole venire is tainted with prejudice." ’ "

  3. Keaton v. State

    No. CR-14-1570 (Ala. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    , we review this claim for plain error only. See Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878, 892 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (reviewing for plain error a claim that was not raised at trial).

  4. Stanley v. State

    143 So. 3d 230 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that there was no error in the admission of the victim’s daughter’s testimony because the testimony did not describe the impact of the victim’s death on the daughter and because the testimony tended "to explain the events" relevant to the victim’s murder

    The decision in Ex parte Waldrop has been consistently followed and upheld. See, e.g., Mitchell v. State, 84 So.3d 968, 988 (Ala.Crim.App.2010); Spencer, 58 So.3d at 247–248; Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878, 903 (Ala.Crim.App.2004); Ex parte McNabb, 887 So.2d 998, 1005–06 (Ala.2004). Further, this court is bound by the decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court.

  5. McKinney v. State

    CR-16-1114 (Ala. Crim. App. Jul. 13, 2018)

    3(c) without regard to the circumstances of the particular case. In Yeomans v. State, 898 So. 2d 878 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004), for example, the defendant's four capital-murder charges were consolidated for trial even though the record did not indicate that the State ever filed a motion to consolidate the charges. This Court rejected the defendant's plain-error claim that he had not had the opportunity to be heard on the consolidation of the four charges. Among other things, this Court noted that the defendant "clearly had the opportunity to object to the consolidation and to be heard on any objection," but he had not objected and in fact had proceeded "as if the charges had been consolidated."

  6. Deardorff v. State

    6 So. 3d 1205 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that petitioner did not have standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim because he did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the back seat of a vehicle in which he was merely a passenger

    E.g., United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986)." Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878, 889 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004).

  7. Dearman v. State

    No. CR-18-0060 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 5, 2022)

    "This Court in Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), held that the multiple convictions in that case for the capital offense of killing two or more people during one course of conduct violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. We stated:

  8. Woolf v. State

    CR-10-1082 (Ala. Crim. App. Jul. 10, 2015)

    "'Haney v. State, 603 So. 2d 368, 389 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991), aff'd, 603 So. 2d 412 (Ala. 1992). See also Lewis v. State, 24 So. 3d 480, 531, (Ala. Crim. App. 2006); Yeomans v. State, 898 So. 2d 878, 904 905 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).'

  9. Shaw v. State

    207 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 23 times
    Noting that, when investigating juror misconduct, a trial court is required to conduct only "an inquiry that is reasonable under the circumstances"

    Both counts required proof of the exact same elements—the intentional murders of both Doris Gilbert and Robert Gilbert. This Court in Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), held that the multiple convictions in that case for the capital offense of killing two or more people during one course of conduct violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. We stated:

  10. Woolf v. State

    220 So. 3d 338 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant was not intoxicated at the time he waived his Miranda rights where the evidence did not indicate when the defendant had ingested alcohol and drugs or what effect those substances had on the defendant when he made his statement

    " ' Haney v. State, 603 So.2d 368, 389 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), aff'd, 603 So.2d 412 (Ala.1992). See also Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480, 531 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) ; Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878, 904 905 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).'