Bolden v. State

Ex parte State of Alabama. Re Parvin BOLDEN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 20, 1992.

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1992-03-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“`Evidence of prior [or subsequent] bad acts of a criminal defendant is presumptively prejudicial to the defendant.'”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Ex Parte Baker, 904 So. 2d 331 - Pace v. State

Relies on Bolden v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-03-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 2012

1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Stephen N. Dodd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

¶2Gene Spencer, Dothan, for respondent.

¶3SHORES, Justice.

¶4The petition for the writ of certiorari is denied.

¶5We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that generally evidence of prior (or subsequent) bad acts of a criminal defendant is presumptively prejudicial. There are certain limited exceptions to this general rule, but none of them applies in this case.

¶6WRIT DENIED.

¶7HORNSBY, C.J., and HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.

¶8MADDOX, J., concurs specially.

¶9MADDOX, Justice (concurring specially).

¶10I concur in denying the writ only because the Court of Criminal Appeals found, as a fact, that "[t]he appellant was positively identified by Bill Warnick, the cashier, both at trial and in a police lineup." Bolden v. State,595 So.2d 911 (Ala.Crim.App.1991).