Ex parte Crow
| Citation | 365 So.2d 1256 |
| Parties | Ex parte David CROW. 78-135. |
| Decision Date | 26 January 1979 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
To continue reading
Request your trial
16 cases
-
DeBruce v. State
...of rebuttal evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. Crow v. State, 365 So.2d 1254 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 1256 (Ala.1979). "The State may, in the discretion of the trial court, introduce in rebuttal any competent evidence which explains or is a direct reply ......
-
Robitaille v. State
...of rebuttal evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. Crow v. State, 365 So.2d 1254 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 1256 (Ala.1979). "The State may, in the discretion of the trial court, introduce in rebuttal any competent evidence which explains or is a direct reply ......
-
Minor v. State
...of rebuttal evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. Crow v. State, 365 So.2d 1254 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 1256 (Ala.1979). `The State may, in the discretion of the trial court, introduce in rebuttal any competent evidence which explains or is a direct reply ......
-
McGee v. State
...case and the appellant's alibi presents a question for the jury. Crow v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 365 So.2d 1254 (1978), cert. denied, Ala., 365 So.2d 1256. At the end of the State's case in chief, counsel for the appellant orally moved to exclude the State's evidence without assigning any speci......
Request a trial to view additional results