340 So. 2d 840 - Lucy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 1995 · most notably 440 So. 2d 1155 - Brewer v. State (1983), 370 So. 2d 749 - Carroll v. State (1979)
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 Mason v. State · Smarr v. State · Grissett v. State · Jackson v. State · Terry 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.
“"(1) Relevancy as part of the res gestae. (2) Relevancy to prove identity of person or of crime. (3) Relevancy to prove scienter, or guilty knowledge. (4) Relevancy to prove intent. (5) Relevancy to show motive. (6) Relevancy to prove system. (7) Relevancy to prove malice. (8) Relevancy to rebut special defenses. (9) Relevancy in various particular crimes."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The apparent justification for the rule is that the introduction of evidence of other separate and distinct offenses requires the accused to defend himself against charges which do not form a part of the indictment and which the defendant is not called on to answer. Garner v. State , 269 Ala. 531 , 114 So.2d 385 (1959); Mason v. State , 259 Ala. 438 , 66 So.2d 557 (1953). Alternatively, it has been suggested that the actual justification is that in the setting of a jury trial, the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of prejudice. McCormick § 190, at 447."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"As a general rule, it has been firmly established that the reviewing court may only consider matters contained in the record as it is filed on appeal. Harris v. State , 57 Ala. App. 558 , 329 So.2d 618 (1976); Blakely v. State , 28 Ala. App. 574 , 190 So. 102 (1939). This principle often finds expression in the phrase that the appellate courts are 'bound by the contents of the record.' [citations omitted]."”
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.