Meredith v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 1979 |
| Citation | 370 So.2d 1079 |
| Parties | In re Frederick Douglas MEREDITH v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte Frederick Douglas Meredith. 78-432. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 370 So.2d 1075.
J. Tutt Barrett, Opelika, for petitioner.
Petition for the writ is denied. Our declining to issue the writ, however, is not to be construed as agreeing with that portion of the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion which finds:
(Emphasis theirs.)
Nor do we agree with language to the like effect in the subsequent paragraph of the opinion. Instead, the declination of the writ is based upon our concurrence with the holding to affirm the conviction for the following reasons: 1) The limited ground of the objection; 2) the immediate appropriate response by the trial Judge; and 3) the absence of any attempted repetition of the improper argument by the District Attorney. Allred v. State, 291 Ala. 34, 277 So.2d 339 (1973).
Writ denied.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
... ... Allred v. State, supra; Dunn v. State, 277 Ala. 39 at 44, 166 So.2d 878 (1964); Bachelor v. State, 216 Ala. 356, 361, 113 So. 67 (1927); Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 44, 95 So. 171 (1922)." ... Meredith v. State, 370 So.2d 1075, 1078-79 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1079 (Ala.1979). Accord Holladay v. State, 549 So.2d 122, 131 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), affirmed, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012, 110 S.Ct. 575, 107 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) ... "The digest abounds ... ...
-
Young v. State
... ... "Unusual or weird behavior alone cannot be equated with mental insanity." Meredith v. State, 370 So.2d 1075, 1078 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1079 (Ala.1979). The conclusion of every expert was that the defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time he committed the crime. Although the defendant argues that a jury is not bound to accept ... ...
-
McWilliams v. State
... ... " 'The general rule is that prejudicial statements, even though improper, are considered capable of being eradicated by the trial court in sustaining objections thereto or by appropriate instructions to the jury or both. Meredith v. State, 370 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1079 (Ala.1979).' Bui v. State, 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Crim.App.1988)." Holladay v. State, 549 So.2d 122, 131 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), affirmed, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012, 110 S.Ct. 575, 107 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) ... ...
-
Janezic v. State
... ... A `"[s]evere mental disease or defect" does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.' Id. `Unusual or weird behavior alone cannot be equated with ... insanity.' Moss v. State, 536 So.2d 129, 135 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (quoting Meredith v. State, 370 So.2d 1075, 1078 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1079 (Ala.1979) ). In order to overcome the presumption of sanity, a defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was, in fact, suffering from a severe mental disease or defect at the time the crime was ... ...