Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 369 So. 2d 873 - Leonard v. State (1979), 409 So. 2d 969 - Wyrick v. State (1981)
50 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Blue v. State · Willingham v. State · Stephens v. State · Rollings v. State · Ragland v. State
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * Of course it is a general principal that where a matter has been gone into by one party to a cause, the other party has the right to explain away anything, if he can, that may have been brought out to his detriment. Cummings v. State, 34 Ala.App. 650 , 43 So.2d 326 . Further if the State introduced evidence of a prior difficulty which is illegal, the defendant can show all the particulars of the difficulty, even though illegal, to rebut the illegal evidence introduced by the State. Longmire v. State, 130 Ala. 66 , 30 So. 413 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““This case, however, presents a peculiar situation. It is not testimony of a previous difficulty between Clarence Johnson and the decedent Homer Smith which is sought to be introduced, but details of a difficulty between Clarence Johnson and Jimmie Threadgill. Clarence Johnson was not being tried for any crime involving Jimmie Threadgill and in our judgment nothing detrimental to Clarence Johnson was brought out in connection with the previous difficulty with Jimmie Threadgill nor was any illegal evidence introduced. The proof introduced by the State explained why the defendant had the shotgun with him in that Clarence Johnson felt the need of having the shotgun to protect himself against the acts of Jimmie Threadgill. The allowance of such proof was proper. Rollings v. State, 160 Ala. 82 , 49 So. 329 . (Emphasis supplied) “Ordinarily the details of a prior difficulty are not admissible beyond the proof of the prior difficulty and its gravity. Bryant v. State, 252 Ala. 153 , 39 So.2d 657 ; Bowen v. State, 217 Ala. 574 , 117 So. 204 . The testimony of Clarence Johnson himself showed that he got his gun to protect himself against Jimmie Threadgill because of the previous difficulty. Beyond this the defendant could not have testified and did not testify with reference to the difficulty with Jimmie Threadgill. Beyond this there was no connection between the difficulty Clarence Johnson had with Homer Smith and the difficulty which he had with Jimmie Threadgill. It is settled that ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.