34 Ala. App. 597 - Ingram v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . It was decided in Johnson v. State, 102 Ala. [1], 21, 16 So. 99 (in response to rehearing) that an exception to the general rule that a witness may not testify to his uncommunicated motives and intention exists where the witness admits that he made a statement attributed by others to him. This exception comprehends the right of even a witness to explain ‘the nature, circumstances, meaning and design’ of what he said, and ‘he may be asked the motive by which he was induced to use such expressions.’ This doctrine of Johnson v. State was accepted and applied in Lowman v. State, 167 Ala. 57 , 52 So. 638 ; Williams v. State, 123 Ala. 39 , 26 So. 521 ; Postal [Tel. Cable] Co. v. Hulsey, 115 Ala. 193, 207 , 22 So. 854 ; Henry v. State, 107 Ala. 22, 26 , 19 So. 23 ; Anderson v. State, 104 Ala. 83, 86, 87 , 16 So. 108 . In the last cited case it was held— notwithstanding the form of the question ■ — that a witness might testify in explanation of discrepancies between her present testimony and that given on a former hearing of a bastardy proceeding that she, the witness, was ‘sacred and embarrassed before the justice of the peace’; the ruling being referred for authority to Johnson v. State, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 49 Ala. App. 356 - Johnson v. State