Ex Parte Bolt

428 So. 2d 1371
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided March 4, 1983·No. 82-335·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By denying the petition for writ of certiorari, we do not wish to be understood as holding that we approve of the conduct by the juror which petitioner claims was prejudicial, but we are of the opinion that the juror's conduct in this case was not such that extraneous facts were introduced upon which the jury might have wrongly been influenced; therefore, petitioner has failed to show probable error in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur. [EDITORS' NOTE: PAGES 1373-1382 CONTAINED DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS.]

*Page 142

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ex Parte Bolt, 428 So. 2d 1371 (Ala. 1983).

428 So. 2d 1371 (Ex Parte Bolt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. State
666 So. 2d 849 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1993)
Reed v. State
547 So. 2d 596 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1989)
Reed v. State
547 So. 2d 594 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1988)
Maddox v. State
520 So. 2d 143 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1986)
Lasley v. State
505 So. 2d 1257 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1986)
Camatsos v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
428 So. 2d 1320 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1983)