Madison v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Madison v. State

816 So. 2d 508, 2001 Ala. LEXIS 385, 2001 WL 1299034

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 26, 2001

Docket1001021

StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 508 (Madison 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.

Bluebook

Madison v. State, 816 So. 2d 508, 2001 Ala. LEXIS 385, 2001 WL 1299034 (Ala. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

STUART, Justice.

The writ of certiorari is quashed.

In quashing the writ, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion. Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973). Specifically, we note that a pertinent fact, not clearly stated in the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion, is that Madison timely and adequately objected to the failure of the trial court to charge the jury on the presumption of innocence; his objection was overruled. See Rule 21.3, Ala.R.Crim.P.; and United States v. Dilg, 700 F.2d 620, 624 (11th Cir.1983)(“A long-standing principle of federal jurisprudence is that a total failure to charge on the presumption of innocence accompanied by a defendant’s objection to such failure requires reversal of a conviction and remand for a new trial without further inquiry.” (emphasis supplied)).

WRIT QUASHED.

MOORE, C.J., and SEE, BROWN, and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.

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

STUART, Justice.

The writ of certiorari is quashed.

In quashing the writ, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion. Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973). Specifically, we note that a pertinent fact, not clearly stated in the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion, is that Madison timely and adequately objected to the failure of the trial court to charge the jury on the presumption of innocence; his objection was overruled. See Rule 21.3, Ala.R.Crim.P.; and United States v. Dilg, 700 F.2d 620, 624 (11th Cir.1983)(“A long-standing principle of federal jurisprudence is that a total failure to charge on the presumption of innocence accompanied by a defendant’s objection to such failure requires reversal of a conviction and remand for a new trial without further inquiry.” (emphasis supplied)).

WRIT QUASHED.

MOORE, C.J., and SEE, BROWN, and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 508, 2001 Ala. LEXIS 385, 2001 WL 1299034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-v-state-ala-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack