Towles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Contrary to the circuit court’s instructions, the jury could not properly consider Cameron’s testimony under the identity exception to the exclusionary rule. ‘[T]he identity exception to the general exclusionary rule of character ... contemplates the situation where the now-charged crime was committed in a novel and peculiar manner.’ Charles W. Gamble and Robert J. Goodwin, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 69.01(8) (6th ed.2009). “ ‘ “ “When extrinsic offense evidence is introduced to prove identity, the likeness of the offenses is the crucial consideration. The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.’” Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677, 680 (Ala.2000) (quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504, 1508 (11th Cir.1994) (further citations omitted)) .... “ ‘Much more is demanded than the mere repeated commission of crimes of the same class, such as repeated ... rapes. The pattern and characteristics of the crimes must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.’ ” Hurley v. State, 971 So.2d 78, 83 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (quoting 1 McCormick on Evidence § 190 at 801-03 (4th ed.1992) (footnotes omitted)).’ “Moore v. State, 49 So.3d 228, 233 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). “The primary assault to which Cameron testified involved Towles’s use of a metal box fan. The only apparent similarity between the assault Cameron suffered and the manner in which Geontae was killed is that Cameron and Geontae are both Towles’s sons. During the act”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 168 So. 3d 133 - Ex parte State of Alabama.

2. ““The circuit court’s instructions were erroneous because they permitted the jury to consider Cameron’s testimony for improper purposes. Given the highly prejudicial nature of collateral acts involving child abuse, this Court holds that the erroneous jury instructions ‘“affected [Towles’s] substantial rights and ... seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the proceeding against him.” ’ Ex parte Billups, 86 So.3d [1079] at 1086 [ (Ala.2010) ] (quoting Billups v. State, 86 So.3d 1032, 1079 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (Welch, J., dissenting)).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 168 So. 3d 133 - Ex parte State of Alabama.

3. ““Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident....””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 168 So. 3d 133 - Ex parte State of Alabama.