Buckles v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
*553AFTER REMANDMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
TYSON, Judge.
The anomaly now presented to this Court is that our reasons for reversal on original deliverance 50 Ala.App. 548, 280 So.2d 810, may not have been specified with sufficient certainty. However, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Blood-worth, the modern authorities, according to the more recent cases, Haynes v. State, 45 Ala.App. 31, 222 So.2d 183 (1969); and Reed v. State, 47 Ala.App. 617, 259 So.2d 304 (1972), have clearly condemned use of the term burden of explaining possession of recently stolen goods…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Orr v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Wildman v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1963
- Hubbard v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- State v. BourgSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1966
- Lester v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1960
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Eldridge v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1982
- Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. State Ex Rel. South Dakota Department of TransportationSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. State Ex Rel. South Dakota Department of TransportationSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997