337 So. 2d 1372 - Beard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Witnesses may always be allowed to testify as to the appearance and emotions of other persons.' Hamilton v. State , 281 Ala. 448 , 203 So.2d 684 (1967); Garraway v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 337 So.2d 1349 (1976); Beard v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 337 So.2d 1372 (1976).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 382 So. 2d 627 - Renfroe v. State · 518 So. 2d 809 - Patterson v. State

2. “" 'The objections to the statements of the witness that the defendant "seemed all right," that "he talked rational," etc., were properly overruled. Such expressions were admissible under the rules [the Supreme Court] . . . [has] announced, and for the further reason that they were admissible to show the appearance, emotions and condition of the mind of the defendant.' [Bracketed material added.] "In Miller v. State , 107 Ala. 40 , 19 So. 37 , the Alabama Supreme Court specifically ruled that: 'It was competent for a witness to testify that accused appeared to be mad.' "Testimony was allowed that one 'appeared normal'; L N Railroad Co. v. Manning , 255 Ala. 43 , 50 So.2d 153 ; and that one 'seemed all right, talked rationally.' Deloney v. State , 225 Ala. 65 , 142 So. 432 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 518 So. 2d 809 - Patterson v. State

3. “"A statement, memoranda, or notes, not read by the witness interviewed and not signed or authenticated by the witness cannot be considered evidence. Mabry v. State , 40 Ala. App. 129 , 110 So.2d 250 . In this case, Harwood, J., writing for the court quoted with approval: `Perhaps the answer is best summarized in a statement by Cardozo, C.J., in People ex rel. Lemon v. Supreme Court of State of New York , 245 N.Y. 24 , 156 N.E. 84 , 85 , 52 A.L.R. 200 , wherein he observed: `Documents are not the subject to inspection for the mere reason that they will be useful in supplying a clew whereby evidence can be gathered. Documents to be subject to inspection must be evidence themselves.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 451 So. 2d 411 - Williams v. State