Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 Ala. App. 181 - Crosswhite v. State

31 Ala. App. 181 - Crosswhite v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
May 2010
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2010

24 state decisions

8019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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 24 Ala. App. 47 - Hurst 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]his law does not permit a single crime to be subdivided into two or more offenses, nor can a series of charges be based upon the same act.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * The true rule seems to be, that, if the minor offense is embraced within the major one, as a constituent element, or component part of it, and on the trial of the one there can be a conviction of the other, then a former conviction or acquittal of the minor will bar the major.—Whart. Cr.Ev. § 584; 1 Bish. Cr.Law, §§ 1055-1058. This is certainly the general rule, subject, perhaps, to certain exceptions, either real or apparent.-—-1 Whart. Amer. Cr.Law, .:§ 563, 566. If such were not the case, as suggested by Mr. Bishop, ‘then the prosecutor may begin with the smallest, and obtain successive convictions, ending with the largest [offense] ; while, if he had begun with the largest, he must there stop—a conclusion repugnant to good sense.’—1 Bish. Cr.Law (6th Ed.) '• §§ 1057, 1055. “A conclusive reason for the soundness of this view, to our mind, is, that if a defendant has been tried for the smaller offense—whether acquitted or convicted it is immaterial—and he, is afterwards put on trial for the larger, he is twice in jeopardy for the smaller offense. The Declaration of Rights provides, that ‘no person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’—Const. 1875, Art. 1, § 10. The principle of autrefois convict or acquit is known to have been based upon the parallel principle of the common law, forbidding, at least in the established practice of the courts, that any one should be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.—Well’s Res.Adj. § 408; 1 ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Any act or omission declared criminal and punishable in different ways by different provisions of law, shall be punished only under one of such provisions, and a conviction or acquittal under any one shall bar a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other provision.””
    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.