Bolden v. State
This text of 595 So. 2d 914 (Bolden v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Ex parte State of Alabama.
Re Parvin BOLDEN
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Stephen N. Dodd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Gene Spencer, Dothan, for respondent.
SHORES, Justice.
The petition for the writ of certiorari is denied.
We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that generally evidence of prior (or subsequent) bad acts of a criminal defendant is presumptively prejudicial. There are certain limited exceptions to this general rule, but none of them applies in this case.
WRIT DENIED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., concurs specially.
MADDOX, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in denying the writ only because the Court of Criminal Appeals found, as a fact, that "[t]he appellant was positively identified by Bill Warnick, the cashier, both at trial and in a police lineup." Bolden v. State, 595 So.2d 911 (Ala.Crim.App.1991).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
595 So. 2d 914, 1992 WL 51213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolden-v-state-ala-1992.