348 So. 2d 848 - Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We doubt not that a criminal linkage between a seller and one acting at the behest of a buyer of a controlled substance can be shown by circumstantial evidence. We so held in Baker v. State, 52 Ala.App. 150 , 290 So.2d 214 , writ denied, 292 Ala. 708 , 290 So.2d 217 . In Baker , the evidence for the State was that while the undercover agent and his informer discussed the subject of marijuana at defendant’s home, defendant went to ‘his Cadillac parked outside ... opened the front door of the parked vehicle ... appeared to be getting something off the seat of the automobile’ and thereafter had ‘what appeared to be Manila envelopes in his hand, of the same size of the envelopes containing the marijuana sold by another to the agent. Defendant, before returning to his home where the agent and informer were, went down the street and in a few minutes returned to his home without the envelopes and told the agent and the informer ... that a guy down the street had the stuff and we could go down there and get it.’ Defendant, the agent and the informer then went in the agent’s automobile in the direction defendant had walked with the Manila envelopes and purchased marijuana from a man by the name of Miller who came to the automobile and joined the other three therein. After buying the marijuana from Miller, the agent asked him if the agent could come back and get a larger quantity. Instead of Miller replying, the defendant said, according to the agent, ‘Come back anytime and get as muc”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Payton v. State · 496 So. 2d 96 - Scofield v. State

2. “"The general rule is that `absent some evidence of actual partiality, a juror is not disqualified merely because he previously sat in a similar case arising out of a separate and distinct set of circumstances even though the offenses charged in the cases are similar and some of the same prosecution witnesses testify in each case.' Government of Virgin Islands v. Williams, 476 F.2d 771, 773 (3rd Cir.1973). It is not a ground for challenge for cause in a drug prosecution that a juror had served on the previous day on a case involving a similar charge in which the same undercover officer had testified as a witness for the State. Hill v. State, 348 So.2d 848, 856-57 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 857 (Ala.1977)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Alvarez · Tolbert v. State

3. “if his conduct, according to the undisputed evidence, does not afford a reasonable inference that he participated with the seller in making the sale.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 515 So. 2d 53 - Harrington v. State · 658 So. 2d 347 - Ex Parte Mutrie