Garner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably 651 So. 2d 641 - Burton v. State (1993), 420 So. 2d 812 - Harris v. State (1982)
71 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 Rice v. Hill · 33 Ala. App. 414 - Lovejoy v. State · 17 Ala. App. 390 - Brandes v. State · 45 Ala. App. 88 - Franks v. State · 57 Ala. App. 151 - Smith 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The rule covering this situation is well-stated in Brandes v. State , 17 Ala. App. 390 , 85 So. 824 , as follows: `. . . The unquestioned province of the court — in fact, the solemn and sacred duty of a trial judge — is the development and establishment of the truth, and in this connection it is always permissible for the court, and if it appears necessary for him to do so it is his duty, to propound to witnesses such questions as it is deemed necessary to elicit any relevant and material evidence, without regard to its effect, whether beneficial to the one party or the other. Beal v. State , 138 Ala. 94 , 35 So. 58 . In fact, it is a sacred duty of a judge, both in civil and criminal cases, to give strict attention to the evidence, and to all facts and incidents attendant upon the trial, to propound questions to witnesses if in his judgment he deems it necessary, and to supervise and control the proceedings before him, with *Page 1303 a view that justice may not miscarry. As before stated, there is nothing in the record before us even tending to show that the trial judge transcended his authority or abused the discretion with which, under the law, he is vested. `It is our opinion that the trial court properly exercised its prerogative in the ascertainment of certain aspects of the testimony, as set forth above, and that such did not invade the rights of the accused. Lovejoy v. State , 33 Ala. App. 414 , 34 So.2d 692 .' "Hinkle v. State , 50 Ala. App. 215 , 278 So.2d 218 ; ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Blaylock v. State · Barbee v. State“Because this issue remained a question for the jury, the denial of the appellant's motion to exclude the State's evidence for insufficient corroboration was not error. The jury was appropriately charged, the issue was placed fairly before them, and was determined adversely to appellant. Having determined that the issue of whether the witness was an accomplice presented a question of fact for the jury, we pretermit discussion of the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence.”
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.