Ex Parte Bell
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Concurrence 1
Although I concur in the result reached by the main opinion, I cannot join the main opinion insofar as it states that Exparte Seymour, 946 So.2d 536 (Ala. 2006); and Ex parteCulbreth, 966 So.2d 910 (Ala. 2006), implicitly overruledIvey v. State, 821 So.2d 937 (Ala. 2001), to the extentIvey stated that venue in a criminal case was jurisdictional. I would distinguish, rather than overrule,Ivey because Ivey does not deal at all with waiver. The defendant in Ivey moved for a judgment of acquittal in the trial court based on improper venue, thereby preserving the issue for appellate review.
I…
Also in this document: Concurrence · Smith.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ex Parte SeymourSupreme Court of Alabama · 2006
- Woodson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Ivey v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001
- United States v. CallahanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1969
- Ex Parte CulbrethSupreme Court of Alabama · 2006
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.