Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . Furthermore, no prejudicial error resulted to the defendant from the line of questions asked his character witnesses. Each of the witnesses testified that he had not heard of any such conduct on the part of the defendant. The overruling on an objection to a question not answered by the witness or favorably answered to the objector, is not prejudicial error. Stephens v. State , 250 Ala. 123 , 33 So.2d 245 . But it is insisted that even though the questions were answered favorably to the objector, the very asking of the questions resulted in prejudice in the minds of the jurors toward the defendant. We cannot assent to this position. A matter of this kind is largely in the discretion of the trial court. Snead v. State , 243 Ala. 23 8 So.2d 269 . . . ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 40 Ala. App. 556 - Peyton v. State · 340 So. 2d 55 - Neugent v. State

2. “". . . Where a witness testifies as to the general reputation or character of the defendant, the knowledge of the witness as to such reputation or character may be tested on cross examination by asking him if he has not heard of specific acts of bad conduct on the part of the accused. But the witness may not be interrogated as to the fact of such particular acts. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) (Citations omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 340 So. 2d 55 - Neugent v. State · 571 So. 2d 341 - McClellan v. State