# Gamble v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · November 19, 1999 · 758 So. 2d 1125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931871

## Case

- **Full name:** Tony Gamble, Jr. v. State of Alabama.
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** November 19, 1999
- **Citations:** 758 So. 2d 1125; 1999 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 258; 1999 WL 1046416
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Long
- **Judges:** Cobb, Long
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931871

## Opinion text

I respectfully dissent. I believe that the error here — the variance between the indictment and the trial court's charge to the jury — can be characterized as a misdescription of an element of the crime, an error that is not jurisdictional in nature and one that must be preserved by specific objection in the trial court. See Gibson v. State , 488 So.2d 38 , 40 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986) (issue was preserved by specific objection). See also Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35
(1999) (erroneous jury instruction omitting element of offense is not a structural error and is therefore subject to harmless-error analysis). Because Gamble did not object to the variance, I would hold that he failed to preserve this issue for review. Therefore, I must dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931871. Public record. Not legal advice.