Hinton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Ex Parte Cofer (1983), Brantley v. State (1975)
4 federal appellate · 48 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 Mason v. State · Johnson v. State · 29 Ala. App. 349 - Wilkins v. State · Gassenheimer v. State · Terry 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The tendency of such evidence [of another and distinct crime] to work great injury to the accused renders its admission reversible error, unless it is brought within one of the exceptions recognized by law.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Casey · Thigpen v. Thigpen““ * * * Evidence of other distinct criminal acts is admissible when relevant to the crime charged, as bearing on scienter, intent, motive, res gestae, or to establish the identity of the accused (and perhaps as bearing on the issue of insanity when that defense is pleaded in the case. — See ‘The Law of Evidence in Alabama’ by Honorable J. Russell McElroy, § 61, pp. 19-20; 1 Wharton’s ‘Criminal Evidence’, 10th Ed., p. 156, § 41.) The authorities also recognize such an exception to show system or plan usually to identify the accused or to show intent. Wharton’s, supra, p. 146, § 39. But even under the exceptions noted they or one of them is admissible only when the evidence is relevant to the crime charged. Noble v. State, 253 Ala. 519 , 45 So.2d 857 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brantley v. State““ * * * We cannot possibly probe into the mental processes of the jurors to ascertain whether and to what extent the incompetent [here interpolate — the excluded] testimony actually had in influencing the exercise of their discretion in fixing the punishment. We are not willing to say it did not have some influence on them, thus affecting the substantial rights of appellant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McMullian v. State
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.