Buckles v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 1991 · most notably 52 Ala. App. 399 - Burleson v. State (1974), 53 Ala. App. 326 - Davenport v. State (1974)
28 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 Barnes v. United States · Buckles v. State · 45 Ala. App. 31 - Haynes v. State · 50 Ala. App. 548 - Buckles v. State · 47 Ala. App. 617 - Reed 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Now, the Law of Alabama states that the possession of property recently stolen, if not satisfactorily explained, is ordinarily a circumstance from which the Jury may reasonably draw the inference and find, in light of the surrounding circumstances shown by the defendant in the case, that the person in possession knew the property had been stolen. “Now, the term recently is a relative term and has no fixed meaning. Where property may be considered recently stolen depends upon the nature of the property and all facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in the case. The longer the period of time since the theft the more doubtful becomes the inference which may be drawn from unexplained possession. Now, this explanation of possession, if you find from the evidence the defendant was in possession of recently stolen property, should be consistent with honesty, and may arise from any evidence in the case, and bear in mind that the defendant in a criminal case never has the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. Now, it is the exclusive province of the Jury to determine whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in the case warrant any inference which the Law permits the Jury to draw from the possession of recently stolen property. “If you find, as a fact, that the defendant possessed recently stolen property described in the Indictment, and it has been satisfactorily explained from the evidence consistent with honesty or innocence, or ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"I charge you ladies and gentlemen of the jury that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property raises an inference that the possessor knew that the property was stolen and the jury may consider that inference."”
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.