# McAdory v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · August 27, 2004 · 895 So. 2d 1029

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9934428

## Case

- **Full name:** Mickey McAdory v. State of Alabama.
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** August 27, 2004
- **Citations:** 895 So. 2d 1029; 2004 WL 1909294
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baschab
- **Judges:** Baschab, Cobb
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9934428

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, in prosecution for possession of cocaine, evidence of defendant’s two prior drug convictions was not admissible and admission was reversible error
- concluding that the jury could not have properly considered *1086 the defendant’s prior convictions to show knowledge and intent because neither was at issue
- concluding that the jury could not have properly considered the defendant’s pri- or convictions to show knowledge and intent because neither was at issue
- concluding that the jury could not have properly considered the defendant’s prior convictions to show knowledge and intent because neither was at issue

## Opinion text

I concur with the majority's conclusion that the trial court improperly admitted evidence about the appellant's prior drug convictions, but I do not agree with all of the reasoning and analysis in reaching that conclusion. For example, the opinion incorrectly implies that it is necessary for the State to allege the purpose for which it intends to offer Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., evidence when it gives notice of its intent to introduce such evidence at trial, and it makes unnecessary remarks about the trial court's rulings on the defense's attempts to introduce evidence about a pattern and practice of harassment by the law enforcement officers who were involved in this case. Nevertheless, because knowledge was not an issue in this case, I agree that the trial court improperly admitted evidence about the appellant's prior drug convictions to prove knowledge in this case. Therefore, I respectfully concur in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9934428. Public record. Not legal advice.