34 Ala. App. 137 - De Graaf v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

93 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The attempt or offer is the basic ingredient of every assault. The chief difference between an assault and an attempt is that an assault presupposes a present apparent ability to commit the offense attempted. Lane v. State, 85 Ala. 11 , 4 So. 730 ; People v. Stanton, 106 Cal. 139 , 39 P. 525 ; 40 Yale L.J. 53 , at p. 65. In general therefore the legal principles pertaining to attempts are equally applicable to assaults." DeGraaf v. State, 34 Ala.App. 137 , 37 So.2d 130 (1948).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stoutmire v. State · Southerland v. State

2. “"In the quite recent case of Edwards v. State [33] Ala. App. [386], 34 So.2d 173 , this court, through Bricken, Presiding Judge, held that where all the evidence adduced shows either the complete, consummated crime, or no offense at all, a jury is warranted only in returning a verdict of guilty of the offense charged, or a verdict of not guilty, depending of course upon whether the jury accepts the evidence presented by the State, or by the accused. On this point Judge Bricken wrote: "`As stated the only evidence adduced upon the trial of this case as to the commission of the alleged offense by appellant was that of the named injured party, which evidence was unsupported by any other evidence in the case. Said evidence tended to show that the crime of robbery itself was completed, that is to say under said evidence the crime was fully consummated. However the verdict of the jury acquitted the defendant of the offense of *Page 1062 robbery, and, as noted, found the defendant guilty of an assault with intent to rob. Said verdict was unsupported by the evidence and was manifestly a compromise verdict which the law does not approve or contemplate. It also shows the exercise of a discretion by the jury not based upon the law or facts; hence in law, was contrary to the law and the evidence, as contended by appellant."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 338 So. 2d 1058 - Childers v. State

3. ““Neither of said sections, however, can be construed to vest in the jury a pardoning power. Said sections properly construed mean where the evidence fails, under the required rule as to measure of proof, to show that the actual offense charged in the indictment has been committed as charged, then, if the evidence warrants it, the provisions of such sections may be applied and the conviction had for a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense with which he is charged.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pruett v. State