Supreme Court of Alabama, 1989

Ex Parte Callahan

Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided November 17, 1989 · Steagall

557 So. 2d 1311; 1989 WL 161157 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Creque v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2018)
Creque v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2018)
McNair v. Allen (11th Cir. 2008)
James Callahan v. Donal Campbell (11th Cir. 2005)
Dixon v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
Harris v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
People v. Schupper (Colo. App. 2014)
Lewis v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)
Callahan v. Haley (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 2004)
Ex Parte Brooks (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)
Richardson v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2001)
Waldrop v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)
Callahan v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)
Powell v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)
Loggins v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)
Grayson v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)
State v. Cobb (Conn. 1999)
Smith v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)
Smith v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1996)
Ivery v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1996)
Drake v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)
Moore v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)
Daniels v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)
Merriweather v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
Scarbrough v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Petitioner, James Harvey Callahan, was convicted on November 7, 1987, of the capital offense of murder during a kidnapping in the first degree, or an attempt thereof, and was sentenced to death. Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-40. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; see Callahan v. State, 557 So.2d 1292 (Ala. 1989).

This petitioner was previously before this Court in Ex parteCallahan, 471 So.2d 463 (Ala. 1985), cert. denied,474 U.S. 1019, 106 S.Ct. 567, 88 L.Ed.2d 552 (1985). There, this Court reversed the judgment and remanded that cause for a new trial because the State had failed to lay the proper predicates in attempting to admit statements made by the defendant. Specifically, the State had failed to show that the statements had been made voluntarily and after the proper Miranda warnings had been given. However, as pointed out in the Court of Criminal Appeals' most recent opinion, the record in the instant case clearly shows that the proper predicate was laid for admission of each of Callahan's statements.

After carefully reviewing the record from the trial court, after reviewing the Court of Criminal Appeals' thorough opinion, especially its treatment of the admissibility of the defendant's statements, and after considering carefully the propriety of the death penalty, we can find no error. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.