Hall 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. “" 'A fatal variance between allegations in an indictment and proof of those allegations presented at trial exists when the State fails to adduce any proof of a material allegation of the indictment or where the only proof adduced is contrary to a material allegation in the indictment. Johnson v. State , 584 So.2d 881 , 884 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). "Alabama law requires a material variance between the indictment and the proof adduced at trial before a conviction will be overturned. Ex parte Collins , 385 So.2d 1005 (Ala. 1980)." Brown v. State , 588 So.2d 551 , 558 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).' " Bigham v. State , 23 So.3d 1174 , 1177 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). " ' "The policy behind the variance rule is that the accused should have sufficient notice to enable him to defend himself at trial on the crime for which he has been indicted and proof of a different crime or the same crime under a different set of facts deprives him of that notice to which he is constitutionally entitled." House [v. State] , 380 So.2d [940] at 942 [ (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) ]. "Not every variance is fatal. Berger v. United States , 295 U.S. 78 , 55 S.Ct. 629 , 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). Reviewing a claim of variance requires use of a two step analysis: (1) was there in fact a variance between the indictment and proof, and (2) was the variance prejudicial." United States v. McCrary , 699 F.2d 1308 , 1310 (11th Cir. 1983). "The true inquiry, therefore, is not whether there has been a variance in proof, but whether ther”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. State · Cubitt v. State

2. ““In the 21st century, however, the various mediums of exchange represent the same standard of value for the dollar. The medium of exchange involved — whether cash, check, debit-card transaction, credit-card transaction, electronic funds, etc. — does not determine the value of the amount of funds. Whether the dollar amount is in the form of cash, check, multiple-party check, credit-card transaction, debit-card transaction, or electronic funds, businesses, banks, and financial institutions recognize that the dollar has a standard value; consequently, the medium of exchange does not determine the value of a monetary amount. This acceptance of the various mediums- of exchange as interchangeable and representing equivalent values for the dollar makes describing the medium of exchange immaterial when describing the funds over which a defendant allegedly has exercised unauthorized control. The material concern is the • monetary amount. Therefore, we conclude that an indictment charging the offense of theft of a certain monetary amount, in violation of one of the provisions of § 13A-8-1 et seq,, Ala.Code 1975, but that does not identify the medium of exchange is legally sufficient. Section 15-8-25, Ala. Code 1975, provides: “ ‘An indictment must state the facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without prolixity or repetition, in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended and with that degree of certainty which will e”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. State

3. “For example, in 1844, the value of five gold coins did not equal the value of five silver coins; therefore, in 1844, to adequately describe the property in an indictment charging common-law theft of an amount of funds the medium of exchange had to be described to determine the value of the funds taken.” 69 So.3d at 230 . . We note that Ex parte Airhart does not appear to have been in accord with the general”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. State