Jordan v. State Court Opinion

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Matter
- Bozeman v. Lambert
Case
- Bozeman v. Lambert
U.S. state
- Alabama
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 3f6a6692-ee92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Case Files, Bozeman & Wilder Working Files. Jordan v. State Court Opinion, 1974. 3f6a6692-ee92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/9216d5b4-1d8b-4e96-8a72-b5cb8e5e90d7/jordan-v-state-court-opinion. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!

    JORDAN v. STATE
Cite ns 318 So.2d 793

Ala. 793

Reversed and renranded.

CATES, P. J., and ALMON, TYSON
and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

DeCARLO, J., dissents.

tiuo
r tGt
rl|

rodl
diq
ntt
Ah

hv.
r$,
hrot

Fc
-to-
)tvt

ol
thc

acr

rh
lur

lt.
m.

ler

0n

r)
d.

m

ir

rt

ra

t
!

r

I l6l Evidence of flight of a defendant numerary circuit Judge, serving as a judge
fr()trr the st:ene of the crinre is admissible of this Court under $ 2 of Act No. 2gg,
irs;r cirt:unrstance to shorv guilt, Wolters July 7, 1945, as amended; his opinion is
1.. .!/o/c, 2-l Ala.App. 370, 135 So. 600; hereby adopted as that of the Court.
.tlc.llli-stcr z'. Stote, 30 Ala.App. 366, 6 So.

2,g .i2: I-ance o. Stote, 28 Ala.App. 571,

l,)() So. 108; Alabama Digest, Volume 6,

L'rirninal Larv, €3.5I(3).

\\'e conclude that the trial court did not
crr in dcclining to e-xclude the evidence.
'l'lrc guilt or innocence of the defendant
rr;rs a jttry question.

IX.

ll ;rppcars that the court gave a very
,,)nrprehcnsivc oral charge; also he gave
(.rght \\'ritten charges requestcd by the de-
r(.n(lilrrt arrd refused thirty-one. We have
rt vit s'cd each of the thirty-one refused
, h;rrgcs, and it is our opinion that they
rlrc correctly refuscd, for that they stated
, rllr('r :ul incorrect principle of larr', rvere
,:r;i1r1,lic;rlrlc to tht evidence in the case,
',\ r r( :rlrstr:lct, or \\'ere substantially coYer-
,,1 lr.r thc oral charge and thc givcn
,lr;rrgcs. \\'e ornit discussing thc individu-
,rl clr:rrges because it *'ould e.rtend this
,,lrirrirrrr beyond reasonablc Icngth. We
l,;irticrrlarl)' refer to the request for thc af-
lrrrrr;rtive charge as being correctly
rt'frrsctl. The grrilt or innocerrce of the de-
i('rl(l;ull s as a jury qucstion.

llt'cause the trial corlrt r(.stricted thc de-
ft'rr<l:urt's cross-exatnination of the state's
,,rrl-v c)'e-rvitness, IIrs. Froney, relating to
tirc stiprrlated transcribed statenrcnt taken
oti:r tapc recorder by ccrtain officers of
the law, it is our opinion that thc trial
t'orrrt committed reversible error. The rec-
,,rrl othcrs'ise is frec of error.

It is ordered that thc jrrdgment of thc
t',tttrt. corrvicting the defendant, bc and the
',rtrit, is herebl, reversed and remanded for
; tt tl 1 1' Irr,rt.t.ttlitt1rs.

| { l1'r( t()ll)ll
ll " li.)\\'i

rr \\'as prepared l-,1

i !\lllO\S, Srrper-

Karen Elalne JORDAN, altas

Y.

STATE.

5 Div. t4t.

(:olrrt of Crirninll Appt'als of Alnbauta.

Oct. 1, 197.1.

Ilolrorring I)cnicd Nov. 12, Ig7-1.

Defendant u'as convicted in the Cir-
cuit Court, Lee County, L. J. Tyner, J., of
second-degree murder, and she appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that
the trial court did not err in overrtrling the
defendant's motion to appoint a lunacy
comnrission or to procure a report of the
superintendent of state hospitals; that
rvhere defendant u.as indicted by grand
jury, she was not entitled to preliminary
hearing; that defendant rvas not entitled
to a change of venue due to pretrial pub-
licity; that the trial court did not err in
admitting defendant's rvaiver of rights and
srrlrscrlucrrt statcllcnt irrto et'i<lcrrcc; that
critlcncc' scizc,l lr.r I ili ;rlr 11. il sclrrch of
llotcl forrt'tt rvlt. fc ,lli. l),1;,ll \!:i: :rrrt,sted
r' ;rs ;rti:t:irsilrlr' : :r,:,r r ':',.' r ,. i,i. 'rr,. rr ,r -

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Jordan v. State Court Opinion

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in