May v. State, 8 Div. 155
| Decision Date | 12 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 155 |
| Citation | May v. State, 166 So.2d 865, 277 Ala. 700 (Ala. 1963) |
| Parties | Carver David MAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Jesse A. Keller, Florence, for petitioner.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., opposed.
Petition of Carver David May for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in May v. State, 166 So.2d 860(8 Div. 848).
Writ denied.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
9 cases
-
Favor v. State
...adequately overcame any prejudicial effect which the prosecution's improper question might have otherwise had. Diamond v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 363 So.2d 109 (1978), May v. State, 42 Ala.App. 401, 166 So.2d 860, cert. denied,
277 Ala. 700, 166 So.2d 865 (1963). IV Next, appellant submits that the trial court committed reversible error by denying repeated motions for mistrial based upon certain remarks made by the prosecutor in closing The district attorney stated, in... -
Henry v. State
...the lack of evidence. Davis v. State, 49 Ala.App. 587, 274 So.2d 360, cert. denied, 290 Ala. 364, 274 So.2d 363 (1972); May v. State, 42 Ala.App. 401, 166 So.2d 860, cert. denied,
277 Ala. 700, 166 So.2d 865 (1963); White v. State, 41 Ala.App. 54, 123 So.2d 179, cert. denied, 271 Ala. 702, 123 So.2d 186 (1960). See also cases collected at 6A Alabama Digest, Criminal Law, k 720(6), (7). Also the objection to the prosecutor's argument on the grounds of... -
Mathis v. State
...State's argument because the trial court sustained appellant's objections and also instructed the jury to "disregard that line of argument" thus curing any error. May v. State, 42 Ala.App. 401, 166 So.2d 860, cert. denied,
277 Ala. 700, 166 So.2d 865 (1963). It should further be pointed out that statements of counsel in argument to the jury must be viewed as in the heat of debate, and such statements are usually valued by the jury at their true worth and are not expected to become... -
Mack v. State
...Additionally, it was for the jury to determine whether or not the appellant was aiding Davis when he shot the deceased. Brown v. State, 41 Ala.App. 641, 148 So.2d 255 (1963); May v. State, 42 Ala.App. 401, 166 So.2d 860, cert. denied,
277 Ala. 700, 166 So.2d 865 (1963). II A. The appellant argues the Miranda warnings given to the appellant immediately after his arrest while the accused was in front of his home were incomplete. On voir dire, in determining the voluntariness...
Get Started for Free