Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The instruction on reasonable doubt that the trial court provided to the jury here incorporated the language found in the Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions on reasonable doubt. The pattern jury instructions inform jurors that their doubt cannot be based on 'a mere guess or surmise'.... It also informs jurors that reasonable doubt that 'entitles an accused to an acquittal is not a mere fanciful, vague, conjectural or speculative doubt.' Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal, Instructions 1.4 and 1.5 (3d ed.1994). ' " 'A trial court's following of an accepted pattern jury instruction weighs heavily against any finding of plain error.' " Wilson v. State , 777 So.2d 856 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), quoting Price v. State , 725 So.2d 1003 , 1058 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999).' Snyder v. State , 893 So.2d 488 , 550 (Ala.Crim.App.2003)."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Stanley v. State · Demetrius Avery Jackson, Jr. v. State of Alabama.

2. ““ ‘A charge on intoxication should be given if “ ‘there is an evidentiary foundation in the record sufficient for the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt’ ” in the element of intent. Coon v. State, 494 So.2d 184, 187 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (quoting Government of the Virgin Islands v. Carmona, 422 F.2d 95 , 99 n. 6 (3d Cir.1970)). See also People v. Perry, 61 N.Y.2d 849 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 966, 966-67 , 462 N.E.2d 143, 143-44 (App.1984) (“[a] charge on intoxication should be given if there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis”). An accused is entitled to have the jury consider the issue of his intoxication where the evidence of intoxication is conflicting, Owen v. State, 611 So.2d 1126, 1128 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Crosslin v. State, 446 So.2d 675, 682 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), where the defendant denies the commission of the crime, Coon v. State, 494 So.2d at 187; see Moran v. State, 34 Ala.App. 238, 240 , 39 So.2d 419, 421 , cert, denied, 252 Ala. 60 , 39 So.2d 421 (1949), and where the evidence of intoxication is offered by the State, see Owen v. State, 611 So.2d at 1127-28.’ “Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 561-62 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).” “However, the court should charge on voluntary intoxication only when there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation in the record for a jury to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the element of intent. Ex parte McWhorter, 781 So.2d 330, 342 (Ala.2000). In ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Stanley v. State · 58 So. 3d 215 - Spencer v. State

3. ““If the defendant’s commission of another crime or misdeed is an element of guilt, or tends to prove his guilt otherwise than by showing of bad character, then proof of such other act is admissible. [Some] well-established exceptions to the exclusionary rule include: (1) relevancy to prove identity; (2) relevancy to prove res gestae; (3) relevancy to prove scienter; (4) relevancy to prove intent; (5) relevancy to show motive; (6) relevancy to prove system; (7) relevancy to prove malice; (8) relevancy to rebut special defenses; and (9) relevancy in various particular crimes.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. White v. State · 49 So. 3d 228 - Moore v. State