368 So. 2d 298 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 , 95 S.Ct. 1779 , 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975), the United States Supreme Court held that to subject a defendant to an adjudicatory proceeding whose object is to determine whether the juvenile has committed acts that violate a criminal law as distinguished from a proceeding limited to the question of transfer, and then, instead of sentencing, transfer him to an adult trial, amounts to double jeopardy. Breed does not preclude separate juvenile and adult proceedings but closely limits the issues which may be considered in the first proceeding. If the juvenile court determines that the juvenile has actually violated a criminal law, adjudges the juvenile delinquent and unfit for treatment as a juvenile and transfers him to the Circuit Court for treatment as an adult offender, jeopardy has attached under the doctrine announced in Breed , and the juvenile would be placed in double jeopardy by trial in the Circuit Court. The juvenile court is only authorized to make a finding of probable cause concerning the specific act leading to the delinquency petition before transferring the juvenile for trial in Circuit Court. Boyd v. State, Ala., 341 So.2d 680 (1977). See also Government of Virgin Islands v. Smith, 558 F.2d 691 (3 Cir.1977)."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 515 So. 2d 55 - Kinder v. State · 644 So. 2d 974 - Maynor v. State

2. “"Joint participants in a crime may be denominated `conspirators' and a joint act or scheme may be called a `conspiracy' since these words do not lose all of their ordinary meaning and content merely because there exists a separate crime of conspiracy." Smith v. State , 368 So.2d 298 , 304 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), cert. quashed, Ex parte Smith , 368 So.2d 305 (Ala. 1979).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 377 So. 2d 1112 - Kendrick v. State · 460 So. 2d 268 - Calhoun v. State

3. “(1) That the “ends of public justice” would be unwarrantedly frustrated by barring the juvenile’s superior court trial, now that it is too late to prosecute him in a" single trial, solely to avoid the pressures and burdens of a second trial where the state did not gain any unfair advantage from the juvenile proceedings; (2) that the fact that the decision in Breed may have been to some extent foreshadowed does not require its retrospective application and (3) that it would be impossible to overestimate the seriousness of affording retroactivity to the Breed rule with regard to its effect on the administration of justice.”

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